Yes I'm "stoking the fire"

[rod@plasterbrok]

But this is an interesting read and seeing how the MSM will not publish these articles here it is!

http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=21153&cid=39&cname=NBR+Comment

[Cliff Rogers]

Yup. :D

[tea lady]

:yeahright: Still getting your science info out of business mags?:rolleyes:

[rod@plasterbrok]

Did you read it Tea Lady??

[dazzler]

From Mcshane;

"Monckton and Evans found a large part of this discrepancy is the result of some basic errors in the IPCC's assessment of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation. When they applied their revised factor to the effect of greenhouse gases, the temperature rise was about a third of that predicted by the IPCC."

So there ya go, a rise will happen, but only a third as much.

thanks, now we can all get some peace :)

[chrisp]

Yes I'm "stoking the fire"

No wonder the earth is getting hotter!

Rod, please put out your fire :)

[Toymaker Len]

The models will need a lot of work for a long time yet, Owen McShane is merely pitting one small untested development of the theory against another. Meanwhile the fact is that the planet is rapidly (in geological time) getting hotter, icecaps and glaciers are melting at unprecedented rates, the polar bears have lost 90% of their range in less than a century...etc. At the moment our best guess is that human pollution of the atmosphere with Co2 is the main cause and if that is right then we have very little time to make the switch to non-fossil sources of energy. If that is wrong then there is nothing we can logically do and the planet will get hotter or not. Of course fossil fuels will run out during this century anyway and we will still have to go to non-fossil energy. If the theory that global warming is caused by our Co2 is correct and we do nothing then the next few generations will see global disaster. A hard choice I grant you but at the moment we seem to be approaching a consensus that the people of the earth will cut back on burning fossil fuels.

[Gra]

has anyone considered global warming might be caused by the continuous waffling on about global warming?????




:stirthepot::U:U

[rod@plasterbrok]

Len are you really serious! The polar bears have lost 90% of their range?

I dont think so.

Ice caps Melting?

Nope stike that one out this year too.

Chrisp, just stoking it up for the cold winter ahead!!

[woodbe]

Ice caps Melting?

Nope stike that one out this year too.


You're so right Rod, it just isn't happening:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/2007_Arctic_Sea_Ice.jpg



woodbe
<sup id="cite_ref-22" class="reference">

</sup>

[Toymaker Len]

Yes Rod, it is happening. It is very likely that polar bears will be extinct in the wild this century. In fact a simple linear projection of the loss of sea ice around the arctic where the bears find their food indicates that their range will all but disappear.

[pharmaboy2]

Arctic sea ice has just recently come off an historic low (note winter 2008 has seen an extreme increase in area back to historic averages). This follows an extreme el nino period. Further, people should note that arctic ice levels are not a function of changes in air temperature, but of ocean currentand salinity interplays.

Further, reduction of arctic sea ice, reduces the insulation of the arctic deep water, and hence cools the body of water not warms it - thus you have another negative feedback occurring - just as an aside.

as to polar bears:
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11656

with lots of links - be careful of extrapolating a prediction of polar bear populations with actual occurrences - predictions based on predictions are inherently dangerous statistically - especially when you are near the top of a sine wave curve (for sea ice mass) - extrapolating in a linear fashion and presenting it as fact is dubious - one of the reasons that the most important words in scientific language are "empirical data" NOT "forward estimates" - one is for science the other is for economists and other social soothsayers. ;)

[dazzler]

Len are you really serious! The polar bears have lost 90% of their range?

I dont think so.

Ice caps Melting?

Nope stike that one out this year too.

Chrisp, just stoking it up for the cold winter ahead!!

North West Passage :?

[rod@plasterbrok]

The Artic Ice cap comes and goes all the time, as does the North West passage open and close (but not so often open). We have just seen one extreme of ice melt now its comming back with a vengence. Nothing whatsoever un-natural about that.

Anyone who points to these natural events saying "global warming" is kidding themselves. The Ice melt has been proven to have nothing to do with air temperature read pharmaboy above.

You can either keep believing all the propaganda about AGW that the Media promotes or you can dig a little bit deeper for the facts. This stuff about the polar bears dying out is soooo yesterday its a joke that anyone could possibly raise it today as evidence of AGW.

But I guess that is because the facts are not reported in the media! So one should not be to harsh on those that have not heard the facts or seen the empirical evidence that proves the polar bear is in NO DANGER. But those who have and choose not to believe them, well thats another matter. They are just alarmists.

[woodbe]

Rod, did you even look at the graphic?

De Nile ain't just a river in Egypt.

woodbe.

[Brickie]

But who draws these graphics? Is someone with a money interest in the whole thing? :?

[pharmaboy2]

Rod, did you even look at the graphic?

De Nile ain't just a river in Egypt.

woodbe.

Firstly, the graphic is published becuase its interesting in that post hoc it shows something that we already know about. Its important to realise this.

Secondly, why that particular start date and end date, and why that partciluar choice for the part of the year?

If i produced a graph starting at 2003 for instance, centred it on permanent winter ice pack, and included the latest up to date data, it would clearly show a pack trend of increasing coverage - ipso facto the arctic is getting cooler, and by extension the globe is getting cooler!!!

see how easy it is. If you dont understand how, where, why and the aim of the author, any graphic is simply a means to communicate the writers opinion. "managing" statistics is an easy art - more surprising is how many people are swayed by it without critical thought.

For an excellant insight into stats and how they can misinform, read Bjorn Lombords "the skeptical environmentalist" - especially has a great section on cancer rates to demonstrate - can be read for free on google books.

[woodbe]

Firstly, the graphic is published becuase its interesting in that post hoc it shows something that we already know about. Its important to realise this.

It also demonstrates something that our correspondent, Rod has implicitly denied has been happening.

Thank you for confirming that.

You can play with stats all you like, and manage them to deny or support what you like. What cannot be denied is that we have been going through a period of reducing arctic summer ice coverage, to the point that the NW passage has been open.

I don't care for the to and fro argument, but I fail to see how a cooling planet you refer to results in less summer ice, unless you have found a way that ice melts by cooling it?

woodbe.

[ernknot]

Global cooling not polar cooling??

[Brickie]

I remember as a kid in the 60's that the Jehovah Witnesses thought that Armageddon was coming to decimate the entire planet, not being of the JW faith or nothing my parents had some friends/acquaintances who were.

These JW people sold up and went and said goodbye to all their relos overseas then came back to await the final end..............I wonder where they are now?:D Prolly sitting in the foetal position waiting, waiting......:doh:

[rod@plasterbrok]

It also demonstrates something that our correspondent, Rod has implicitly denied has been happening.

Thank you for confirming that.

You can play with stats all you like, and manage them to deny or support what you like. What cannot be denied is that we have been going through a period of reducing arctic summer ice coverage, to the point that the NW passage has been open.

I don't care for the to and fro argument, but I fail to see how a cooling planet you refer to results in less summer ice, unless you have found a way that ice melts by cooling it?

woodbe.

What you fail to realize is that this is a natural event dependent of prevailing winds not warm air.

Of course I recognize the fact that the ice sheet reduced in size. Just I dont believe for a second your reasoning for it.

[pharmaboy2]

I don't care for the to and fro argument, but I fail to see how a cooling planet you refer to results in less summer ice, unless you have found a way that ice melts by cooling it?

woodbe.

the example I gave you was purely that - an example. It illustrates that depending on the time period chosen and the method - the result changes.

Where Rod is correct, is on the upto the minute data. the northern hemisphere winter has been extreme, and the ice addition has also been extreme - therefore its highly likely that this coming NH summer, that the trend of the last 10 years will reverse as the top of the sine wave.

Anecdotal examples to demonstrate a belief are not science - they are journalism - the polar bear example for instance is journalism, as is glacial retreat, and in this case arctic ice retreat - the major factor in each isnt increased average air temperature.

[woodbe]

Ice caps Melting?

Nope stike that one out this year too.



That is what I responded to.

Pharmaboy, the only way of measuring summer ice is to measure it in the summer. If you tried it in the winter, it wouldn't be a measure of summer ice now, would it?

There has been a one year change to a trend that has been going for some years, and you two are trumpeting it as a revolution. Isn't that the sort of thing you accuse the other side of?

Extremes on both sides of the GW debate are not helpful. Characterising anything you don't agree with as 'journalism' is not helpful. The debate on GW is so fractured that anyone can find lots of supporting references for their own point of view.

My view is that western society has become so disconnected from the planet that we wouldn't know or truly care about a problem if we fell over it. We drive our cars, watch TV, run our airconditioners, etc etc. We isolate ourselves in a blinkered cocoon and are quite happy to carry on that way with little or no consideration of the effects of that existence on the planet and the future generations that will occupy it. If AGW is happening or happens in the future, the chances of being able to agree about it or decide to do anything about it before it is too late are very slim.

Personally I take one of the kids out as often as I can to see and walk gently on the land, as I think an appreciation of nature is something earned by being in it. It's really quite enlightening to see the joy in their faces and the skip in their walk return after only an hour or so away from the computer games and associated dross. 12km today: Google Earth Track (http://bellavist.com/gpstracks/Yurrebilla01b.kmz)

woodbe.

[rod@plasterbrok]

You bring a lot of sense to this debate Pharmaboy.

Woodboy I grew up on a farm and spent a lot of time in the bush etc over the years and appreciate nature as much as anyone. But this does not change my attitude to AGW. I call a spade a spade how I see it. More and more people a comming to understand tha AGW is at the very best only a remote possibility and at the worst blatant fraud.

I believe the truth is somewhere in the middle. Scientists and Pollies have backed themselves into a corner on AGW and they desperatly need an escape where they can save face.

Read what this guy has to say if you dare! http://www.davidrhenderson.com/articles/0399_globalwarning.html

[woodbe]

Of course I recognize the fact that the ice sheet reduced in size. Just I dont believe for a second your reasoning for it.

Interesting admission. Can you please enlighten me what my reasoning is?

I think you are assuming some stuff here. Please go back and read what I said.

woodbe.

[rod@plasterbrok]

This is not an admission it is simply a fact.

You may not say it directly woodbe, but the inference in your posts are that it is due to global warming therby melting because the temperature has increaced. And further to that that Global Warming is caused by humans.

If this is not the case then enlighten me!

[woodbe]

You may not say it directly woodbe

Thanks for that Rod.

Rod, I've given up debating GW. Like I say, the debate is poisoned and polluted from both sides.

I was not offering any reasoning, just that the facts certainly don't seem to support what you were saying while you were dumping on Len. After all, he has an opinion too, and it's just as valid as yours or mine.

So the arctic ice has been melting, and you agree that is is a fact. I think you might mention that to Len next time you're talking to him.

woodbe.

[rod@plasterbrok]

Woodbe the loss of Artic ice had nothing to do with AGW this has been proven already. To keep brining it up to support a debate on AGW is just wrong. Yet it keeps comming up as one of the "main" indicators in support of AGW.

Real science.com even went as far as saying that when the Artic ice reduced that it was "THE" tipping point that concluded that AGW was real.

Now the ice is back what do they say? Nothing.

There is so much at stake in this debate that it is crucial that the facts be told. How many times have scare campaigns like this turned out to be false? This one will destroy economies if left un challanged.

There is a huge onus on those peddeling the AGW theory to 100% right before committing the world to sensless carbon trading schemes etc. There is an even bigger onus on the scientists that have diss-proved the theory to stick to their guns and not be bullied by there peers who have too much to loose.

My tip is that the USA will be the first to officially "down play" the risk of AGW and do nothing.

[woodbe]

Rod, I haven't been debating Arctic Ice and AGW.

Please read what I said.

woodbe.

[woodbe]

Oh, and while you are forcing the AGW folk to bear an onus of 100% correctness, in the sake of the fairness you have been espousing, can you please require the same standard for the anti-AGW crowd?

That will absolutely guarantee inaction.

woodbe.

[Toymaker Len]

Well I hope that a plasterer from melbourne and a bloke from Newcastle have the answer to global warming... "don't worry about it folks, its all a hoax, keep cool, no sweat..." I really mean that, it will be wonderful if you are right. And I won't give a damn about all the wasted effort put in by all the scientists and administrators and politicians who are working to understand it and do something about it. It'll be the best joke ever.Mind you I did meet Prof. Tim Flannery last year after a lecture he gave on global warming, and I have read his books, and he looked to me to be both exhausted and terrified by the task and the situation. He doesn't look like a guy who is simply wrong. I sure hope he is wrong though.
This reminds me that when the first eco-alarmist book "Silent Spring" by Rachel Carson was published alerting the world to the danger of DDT the then US Secretary of Agriculture was Ronald Regan who sprang to the defense of DDT declaring that millions of people would starve to death if DDT was banned.
Since then there have been thousands of campaigns on environmental issues and often as not opposition to grass roots activism from powerful vested interests. Come to think of it, isn't George W Bush an oil man ?

[rod@plasterbrok]

100 meters Tim, yep I'm sure we all agree that the seas will rise 100m LOL.

But I am glad to hear you hope AGW is not happening because at least you will feel relieved. But at what point will you feel reassured? What will the evidence be that reassures you? How long will Temps have to stay down or decrease before you feel safe again?

Will it be when the Media changes their story? Or when the pollies come out and say the threat has receeded? Will it be when the scientist who are desperatly trying to find some empircal evidence to support the theory finally give up?

I dont have the answeres to relieve the stress and worry of AGW but others do and they are already all over the internet, we just need the Media to catch up eh!

I firmly believe that many people simply accept what the media are telling them and are silent on the issue. Then there is a minority of people that add the fuel for the media with sensational claims about AGW. Like Brumby blaming last weeks wind on Global Warming etc. It sells papers. The Age forced its Journo's to only report positive stories on Earth Day, directed by the greenies what to publish and when. The BBC were harassed into changing an anti AGW story by green groups.

Why is this all needed if their claims are true? Surely the truth is good enough to stand up on its own?

The web of untruths and hysterical claims about AGW are slowly comming unravelled as the internet provides the platform for common sense even if the Media wont pick up the ball.

Why not read up on all the aritcles from BOTH sides and form your own opinion based on facts. There are very few provable scientific facts that support AGW not least empirical evidence over the past 10 years.

There are more and more people speaking out against AGW and more should.

[AlexS]

Rod, fer chrissake give it a break!. Just because you haven't got the brains to understand anything that disagrees with your unfounded beliefs doesn't mean you've got the right to bore those of us who have an IQ greater than room temperature into extinction.

[rod@plasterbrok]

Alex if it bores you dont read it!

You degrade yourself with those comments Alexs. I'm sure my beliefs are well founded are yours? Not agreeing with someone does not mean a lack of understanding. I presume you dont agree with my views, so I suppose anyone who does not agree with your view has a low IQ is that right?

Yep this is a bee under my bonnet for sure, give it a break? nup.

[woodbe]

So Rod.

You had the opportunity right there to tell Len you were sorry for dumping on him about the melting icecap thing, because woodbe has pointed out some evidence that you agree is factual that supports disappearing summer ice.

You want people to listen to your views, but you're not prepared to admit some tiny detail like this. It's not hard to admit to someone that you were wrong, it just takes a bit of guts, and you'll feel better after, I promise.

Go for it. I'm sure Len is listening.

woodbe.

[rod@plasterbrok]

Len are you really serious! The polar bears have lost 90% of their range?

I dont think so.

Ice caps Melting?

Nope stike that one out this year too.

Chrisp, just stoking it up for the cold winter ahead!!

Woodbe I fail to see anything here I should be sorry for.

Firstly the Polar bear comment is simply not true and I am very surprised any one is still using that one!!

Secondly "ice caps melting?" See comment and read very carefully it says, "strike that one out this year too"
"This Year" recognises what you clearly pointed out before that in previous years there had been a reduction in Artic Ice.

The reasons for which have been PROVEN not to be caused by AGW.

I try very hard to to attack anyone on a personal level here but it seems others are very happy to attack me. Thats cool I'm a big guy and can handle it.

[pharmaboy2]

That is what I responded to.

Pharmaboy, the only way of measuring summer ice is to measure it in the summer. If you tried it in the winter, it wouldn't be a measure of summer ice now, would it?

There has been a one year change to a trend that has been going for some years, and you two are trumpeting it as a revolution. Isn't that the sort of thing you accuse the other side of?


woodbe.

to the first question, because there are 2 or a multitude of options, the one that fits the arguement is chosen, fair? each changes the outcome - its a filter.

To the second - thats exactly the point I am making - I'm trumpeting a one season anomaly, and the GW promoters are going on about a decade trend - a one year trend change is more relevant to a decade, than a decade is to climate.

Anthroprogenic warming should (needs?) to correlate with co2 changes, even if one builds a lag in to that effect (the lag is assumed due to observations not fitting theory - not empirically observed btw). We should be seeingan arctic melting trend of 3o years duration to help the AGW cause.

What is happening is that people believe so strongly in AGW that when they see some change, it is immediately laid at the door of AGW - doesnt matter if its glacial retreat that started in the nineteenth century, or an ice shelf in the last 10 years.

We are just at the end of an almost unprecedented el nino pattern, that has correlated with all manner of ocean current effects and quite possibly a global climate driver - now it can be argued that el nino is a result of atmospheric warming - but thats not whats been argued.

[Toymaker Len]

First; Science is an inherently self-correcting system where ideas are continuously being peer reviewed and tested. Hence we tend to zero in on the truth. This is not a simple process but involves research and replication of data by anybody who can do the work and publish the results. The results have to be able to be independently reproduced. To suggest that there is some vast conspiracy or delusion abroad is just silly.
Second; This thread isn't really about global warming is it ? It is a series of self-confirming circular arguments backed by blunt assertions. The subtext is male posturing. Dare to stand out from the crowd anyone ? Somebody who can take it ?
I'm done.

[rod@plasterbrok]

Len it is about awarness that AGW as a theory is being seriously challanged by scientists on many fronts.

Because the main stream media choose to ignore these papers challanging the AGW theory it is left to other means of circulating the information to the public.

My intention is to raise awareness of the fact these challenges are out there, are seriously challenging the core belief that many hold on AGW, that is, that the science "is settled". There is no way the science is settled!

Forums such as this are one of those means. I posted a link for people to read and comment on. The ensuing debate here does not reference to any challenge of the validity of the information in that link. It has been others that have tried to shoot down the "denialists positon" by posting rheteric that claims to support the "believers position" without addressing any of the issues raised within the link I provided.

So the thread has been taken off course from the original intent. Rebuttal of the responses as outlined above has got to be expected.

Why not try to read the original link and come back with your views on that?

Easy to say I'm done and ignore the issue.

I really don't know what it is that prevents people from wanting to find out the truth about AGW. Simply ignoring the challenges to AGW is not going to work!

[Big Shed]

I don't know whether this article (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23509775-2702,00.html) will get put down as "journalism", but one can't walk away from the fact that more and more scientists are expressing some doubt about the cause of AGW.

Me, I have an open mind, I am always somewhat suspicious of arguments presented by people with closed minds. Most of the people saying global warming is primarily caused by us humans seem to have a very closed mind. What also worries me is that scientists that have the temerity to speak out against this dogma get dumped on from a great height.


If we are the ones causing it, we should be doing something about it, if we are not, then all that money and economic hardship people are talking about is just so much wasted effort.

What I do know is that cleaning up our act one way or another would be a good thing.

This does not include doing irrational things, such as buying a Toyota Prius, which costs 22 tons of emissions to produce and saves 1.5 tons of emissions per year. That is the sort of thing that gives "greenies" a bad name. Worst thing is the Victorian Govt seems to be running quite a few of them.

[pharmaboy2]

Me, I have an open mind, I am always somewhat suspicious of arguments presented by people with closed minds. Most of the people saying global warming is primarily caused by us humans seem to have a very closed mind. What also worries me is that scientists that have the temerity to speak out against this dogma get dumped on from a great height.

I must admit, that i became a contrarian after 2 things - one was when I started to hear "the science is settled" and "consensus" - they ring very loud alarm bells for anyone with scientific training. teh second was upon reading Richard lindzens Wall street journal series - particularly on albedo, and water vapor considerations.

Now for something very interesting for BOTH SIDES of the discussion - last year there was a debate held in NY between some of the biggest names in this debate - the household ones been Richard lindzen and Gavin Schmidt (co-owner of realclimate with Mann).

I wondered why i hadnt heard of it again as on realclimate they were a bit apprehensive about participating because it would "imply the science isnt settled" (there's those words again) - here's a pdf of the transcript - really a good read, and I think there is a link to a pod cast on realclimate.org as well.

It is totally equal and unbiased as both views are given equal time, with responses, questions, and also a vote as to who won to keep ACA happy! ;)

www.intelligencesquaredus.org/TranscriptContainer/<wbr>GlobalWarming-edited%20version%20031407.pdf

[Toyboy]

I like to think I have an open mind regarding 'global warming'. Isn't that convenient? Well it is for me.
BUT.....the physics doesn't add up to what the GW groupies are espousing. Al Gore has re-invented physics for the world as we know it and some computer boffins have put together a progam to back up the new Laws of Physics. It's referred to as GIGO, in computer speak.

It's like a religion. One must not criticise or question the proponents. Just read back through this thread and you'll see what I mean.

Anyway, having said that, I will be expecting some zealot to accost me in the street and beat me until I repent or whatever one must do regarding this subject.:o

Next thing you know, some group will try to ban dihydrogen-monoxide because of the risk to our health and well-being. I say we keep using this chemical which seems to play some part in the whole GW thing, apparently.:rolleyes:

[Big Shed]

Next thing you know, some group will try to ban dihydrogen-monoxide because of the risk to our health and well-being. I say we keep using this chemical which seems to play some part in the whole GW thing, apparently.:rolleyes:

I'll drink to that! (from a bottle of course, never from the tap!:rolleyes:)

[woodbe]

Woodbe I fail to see anything here I should be sorry for.

Firstly the Polar bear comment is simply not true and I am very surprised any one is still using that one!!

Secondly "ice caps melting?" See comment and read very carefully it says, "strike that one out this year too"
"This Year" recognises what you clearly pointed out before that in previous years there had been a reduction in Artic Ice.

The reasons for which have been PROVEN not to be caused by AGW.

I try very hard to to attack anyone on a personal level here but it seems others are very happy to attack me. Thats cool I'm a big guy and can handle it.

Rod, I'm not discussing AGW, I think I've already made that very clear, but you and Pharmaboy continue to spruik your own anti-AGW mantras back at me despite what has been said.

There's an old saying, I'm sure you have heard it. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

I am being pedantic, yes. What I have been doing is pointing out that both sides of this 'debate' choose their words and data very carefully, as you have done with Len, to support their own point of view. It happens on both sides, and as usual, it would be a rare occasion for someone to admit it. I thought you might be up to it, but I was wrong.

Sorry for wasting your time.

woodbe.

[rod@plasterbrok]

Woodbe what you have just written is just plain ridiculous.

[underfoot]

I've been following this thread right from the start,
without making comment,

-reading every link posted,........everything!

do I believe a nobel prize winner ?

or Rod the plasterer?

sorry Rod

[woodbe]

Woodbe what you have just written is just plain ridiculous.

What part?

That I expect people to communicate rather than spruik? That we communicate with honour? That we respect other's opinions, and not ride over them in order to score another point for the religion?

woodbe.

[rod@plasterbrok]

Underfoot, sigh! really clever comment.

I guess you are unaware that the British courts threw a very dark cloud over 11 assumpions made by Gore!

Gore has been proven to distort the facts to suit his own agenda. Believe what and who you like I guess.

Your comment simply shoots the messenger therefore makes no sense at all.

Woodbe I will not be drawn into your little game of pedantics any more. The comments speak for themselves.

Speaking of Gore this flames another of his theories, Just check out who the person is making the claim before flamming me LOL! http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/12/hurricane-expert-reassesses-climate-link/index.html?hp

[underfoot]

Underfoot, sigh! really clever comment.


rod
do I detect a note of sarcasm?

I seem to recall that it was you that suggested that I read all the links before I made up my mind, ( most of which were posted you)

I did just that,

and have made up my mind,

despite the comments in your previous posts
you seem to have a problem with this?

[autogenous]

The one thing about the internet is that comments stay for some time.

Not as long a time as some scientists use to forecast, like 300000 years instead of like 5 years.:wink:

The earths climate fluctuates so much within a decade, century through a 1000 years.

Gore makes a packet out of his sheep through lectures and inspirational rubbish.

You have to love some of those wonderful computer models. What a joke.

The media will never attain advertising revenue out of stating the obvious.

Keep it up Rod. Never stop questioning.:)

[rod@plasterbrok]

Not at all quite the contrary, I am glad you read the links, I guess you don't believe they are accurate. The thing is, no matter what evidence is provided, scientific or other, it will never sway the mind of some people. Thats ok and is expected. It makes no difference if you change your view or not.

Judging by the emails I have recieved lately it has changed the view of some and they are the ones that count.

I really really dont have an issue with anyone that chooses to believe AGW is real and etc. etc. If they are well read on both sides of the subject and make the choice that's fine. It simply means they believe one set of evidence over another and have made their own choice.

Most people don't even realise there is a contrary view to AGW. Now there is the difference. They are the people that in the end will sway public opinion one way or the other as more is know about the climate and is made public knowledge.

Autogenous, I will. :)

Need broad shoulders though, getting flamed here LOL

[pharmaboy2]

What part?

That I expect people to communicate rather than spruik? That we communicate with honour? That we respect other's opinions, and not ride over them in order to score another point for the religion?

woodbe.

Respectfully, i'd suggest that to call others posts "spruiking" is not to communicate with honour nor to respect their opinions - at least thats how its been received here.

[woodbe]

I respectfully disagree..

I have not engaged in the AGW debate in this thread. I have responded to one post which in my opinion the response is patently wrong, based on facts that have been agreed in this thread, and I have not offered any AGW opinion.

In response, pharmaboy and rod have not been able to help themselves but respond to let me know how wrong my AGW reasoning is. Repeatedly.

Look through the thread and see how my posts have been met with anti-AGW rhetoric, even when I have repeatedly said and demonstrated I am not debating AGW.

If it's not spruiking, I don't know what it is.

woodbe.

[rod@plasterbrok]

Woodbe what is the point in being so indignant, and point scoring over this. It is unnecessary and not what the thread is all about. Let it go!

Lets just debate the content of the original links I provided. Which no one seems to want to do, wonder why?

[RETIRED]

Keep it nice kiddies.

[rod@plasterbrok]

Thanks Ian I want to keep it that way. Will take note. :)

[underfoot]

Judging by the emails I have recieved lately it has changed the view of some and they are the ones that count.

:rolleyes:

[pharmaboy2]

I respectfully disagree..

I have not engaged in the AGW debate in this thread. I have responded to one post which in my opinion the response is patently wrong, based on facts that have been agreed in this thread, and I have not offered any AGW opinion.

In response, pharmaboy and rod have not been able to help themselves but respond to let me know how wrong my AGW reasoning is. Repeatedly.



seriously - whats the thread about?

I responded to you about arctic ice, and tried (unsuccessfully) to explain how both people were right depending on how you look at it - in keepping with the actual topic of the thread I also wrote a paragraph more generally on AGW - apologies for the crimes against humanity.

Posts on forums are rarely intended for the respondeent only, but more generally for the many who read for their own information or amusement.

You cansafely take the fiirst paragraph after a quote to eb directed at you, but after that your in the rough and tumble of forum discussion.

For the others that read, i hope they get a little of something out of it.

[woodbe]

Rod, you're right, I have been indignant.

Allow me to explain, and please don't read any AGW debate into this.

What gets to me about forum debates of 'hot' topics is that people become adept at finding supporting information on google and various other sites. It's easy to do research in this way, because for whatever side of a debate you have adopted, there are literally thousands of parallel debates that have done their own google extractions of suitable material. If you're on a couple of forums you would see a few topics keep popping up that feed the 'research stream'

The outcomes of these debates are never arbitrated at the level that an organised debate would be, so the 'hot' topics quickly descend down into degenerative behaviours (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Flies) (see link) and the winner is usually the person or group of people with the best searching skills and/or the loudest voice. The biggest difference I see between Golding's island and the forum debates is that unlike the hapless Piggy, participants can leave the debate at will, and often do. That leaves behind the stayers, who are practised and expert in their ability to quote the truth at each other usually with many links, and dare each other to refute the claims of their impeccable sources.

The threads rarely die out, they usually die by the moderators axe like 's beautifully mesmerising example, or they reach the forum's post limit and a new thread is started to continue the 'fun'

So I have been playing the beast, and I've rushed through camp and taken the weapons. I'm not aligned with the debate, distracting, and hoping to put a spotlight on the futility of these debates and some of the tactics necessary to 'win' such a contest. I don't claim success but hopefully I made some people think and reflect on it.

I'll stop now if you apologise to Len for stamping over his opinion (just joking) :D :D :D

woodbe

[Big Shed]

In other words you are a moderator in training woodbe?

[woodbe]

Hardly. Too many words. :)

[rod@plasterbrok]

Thanks Woodbe.

I am not trying to win an argument or debate I am simply bringing awareness that there is not conclusive evidence supporting the claims made on AGW.

However in doing so I am quite prepared to rebutt any claims to the contrary that I disagree with.

I don't mind in the slightest when someone makes a claim like the polar bears thing, as this has been reliably debunked and shows a lack of understanding of the person making the claim. That is if you choose to believe the facts on Polar Bear numbers and not someone's theory on their numbers based on a what if scenario.

The issue about AGW that really gets under my skin it that people claim the science is in and is final. Where any sensible person would understand that every scientific theory that is unproven remains a theory that is to be further investigated by science until the theory is proven. The fact that this work is going on demonstrates this. However those that are pushing the AGW agenda the hardest refuse to acknowlege this. If they are so certain they are right why would they not welcome any attempt to disprove it? If you are right any attempt to dissprove it would only solidfy your position, while suppression only weakens it and creates justifiable suspicion.

The models used by the ipcc to form their opinions have been proven wrong they have not and cannot accurately predict Climate Change.

Given the doubt that has been created, the most sensible thing to do, before committing trillions of $, is to look at all the science in an objective manner without the blinkers on. Then let the facts speak for themselves.

The 2nd thing that annoys me is all the wild claims that borders on hysteria that assume global temperature WILL rise, and the Media's glee to jump on and give these claims full exposure, when empirical evidence is to the contrary. Yet the wild claims keep comming and with the media support the general public come to view these claims as fact, as that is how it is presented to them.

Yet still you will have those that refuse to see beyond what they read in the paper.

[Big Shed]

If a 13 year old German school boy can find errors in NASA modeling (http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/brock-shockb-schoolboy-corrects-nasa-killer-asteroid-maths/2008/04/16/1208025230056.html) to the tune of 2 zeros, then perhaps their climate modelling isn't all that crash (excuse the pun) hot either?

[funkychicken]

has anyone considered global warming might be caused by the continuous waffling on about global warming?????




:stirthepot::U:U

Gra for PM!:D

[Big Shed]

And the debate goes on, "Ice Age" anyone?

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23584524-11949,00.html

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html

[woodbe]

There was a program on SBS about the Gulf Stream the other day. It didn't seem alarmist, but the language was more accepting of GW as a fact rather than a load of bollocks, but that is not what was interesting.

They were basically repeating what I think is generally accepted - the Gulf Stream is like a circulatory system that feeds warm water from the tropics up into the north Atlantic, warming Europe and keeping the winters mild.

Anyway, the thrust of the program was that the warm water sinks up north due to it's high saline content and this process is the engine of the current, pushing water down and back to the tropics, completing the loop. The melting icecap is dumping pure water into the Atlantic, reducing the saline content and potentially stalling the Gulf Stream. Timeframes in the 100s year range were talked about.

Hope you guys are right about the icecap not melting..

[woodbe]

Mt Cook glacier melting away: scientists

Posted 3 hours 0 minutes ago
Scientists in New Zealand say most of their country's largest glacier could melt away within the next 20 years.
The Tasman Glacier near Mount Cook is retreating by almost 200 metres a year.
Researchers who have been re-surveying the area say that rate is accelerating and could at least double in the years to come.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/24/2226285.htm?section=justin



We were at Fox Glacier (also NZ) last year, and they told us that it and Franz Josef were the only Glaciers on the planet that were growing at the current time. I didn't think to ask about the Tasman Glacier




woodbe.

[rod@plasterbrok]

Thats what glaciers do Woodbe, grow. receed, grow, receed. Nothing at all surpising there.

Note the "could" melt away. When are these guys going to come up with some definite scenarios like "WILL" melt away. They just don't know so the throw in the "could" melt away just to scare people.

I will starts listening when they start saying "will" melt away and here ist he reason why!

I could get hit by a bus today, but will I?

[Daddles]

I could get hit by a bus today, but will I?

We can only hope :D

Richard

[Toyboy]

Rod, you've got to remember that this 'GW' stuff is for all intents and purposes a religion, and you know that any criticism of the myth will only bring about heated responses.

Unlike most other subjects which can be debated and discussed sanely, GW seems to bring out certain passion in some people. If it is on TV or written in a newspaper, it becomes gospel or worse still, if some clown (Al Gore's name springs to mind), gets a brownie point so he doesn't look too stupid to his fellow countrymen, it just has to be fact.:doh:

I see it as the non-religious version of 'the world is ending'.:o

[woodbe]

When are these guys going to come up with some definite scenarios like "WILL" melt away. They just don't know so the throw in the "could" melt away just to scare people.

Well, it's language. Language of moderation, actually. They're not saying 'will' because they do not have the benefit of precognition or a time machine.

No-one can know any of this stuff 100% for sure, Rod. That's why they use those words. They are saying they have measured the rate of melting, and they have calculated where they think it might be heading.

I'm having trouble seeing the problem. Can you suggest how this information might have been delivered that you would be happy with?

woodbe.

[rod@plasterbrok]

No one is being held accountable for the scarey scenarios they put forward.

They can say anything they like with words like "would" "could" "might". If you want to believe them thats cool.

But don't expect everyone else to believe them.

[dazzler]

Had a listen to a climatologist on ABC National the other day and what was interesting was he was saying forget discussing whether or not climate change is going to happen but to prepare for it to happen.

Because historically it is going to happen. Has happened before, will happen again and again and again.

He said whether it is man made is a side show to overpopulation and overtaxing the planet which is what needs to be addressed as a matter of priority.

[woodbe]

No one is being held accountable for the scarey scenarios they put forward.

They can say anything they like with words like "would" "could" "might". If you want to believe them thats cool.

But don't expect everyone else to believe them.

You misunderstand me again.

I never said I believed them, or expected anyone to believe them. I merely explained the use of the language of moderation. Did you 'get' that?

Again, how would you report this information?

woodbe.

[Dean]

We are lucky just to still be here to debate this global warming considering the Y2K bug was going to wipe us all out :p

[astrid]

If anyone is really interested in a balanced site on this, check here http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Check the thermomiter on the left side to link to most commonly asked q

Astrid

[Ashore]

Balanced Astrid :no:
"This website is an attempt to examine all the scientific arguments that reject AGW. "
All he is looking at is arguements that reject AGW, and finding fault with them , but not the other side of the coin :no:

[rod@plasterbrok]

I said I could get hit by a bus but will I?

Daddles says


We can only hope :D

Richard

Not very nice I would not wish that on you regardless of your AGW opinion.

Anyway it does seem like like skeptic view is gaining ground as there has been no warming for 10 years now and it looks more like we will get another 10 years of cooling due to the deep ocean temps dropping for the past 5 years. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/30/eaclimate130.xml

Very hard to maintain an argument of warming against the scientific and empirical evidence against it.

Rudd is going to look stupid in a few years time trying to push the Kyoto agreement. What a waste of money.

[rod@plasterbrok]

Had a listen to a climatologist on ABC National the other day and what was interesting was he was saying forget discussing whether or not climate change is going to happen but to prepare for it to happen.

Because historically it is going to happen. Has happened before, will happen again and again and again.

He said whether it is man made is a side show to overpopulation and overtaxing the planet which is what needs to be addressed as a matter of priority.

Yep agree that climate change will always be happening and that money should be spent preparing for the changes not trying to mitigate them.

Nature will take care of over population when it is required!!!

What are we going to do? Kill off a few? who will be first? come on!

[woodbe]

there has been no warming for 10 years now and it looks more like we will get another 10 years of cooling due to the deep ocean temps dropping for the past 5 years. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2008/04/30/eaclimate130.xml


From Rod's quoted Telegraph Article:
Global warming may 'stop', scientists predict

I burst out laughing when I read that. Rod, you're hilarious! :)

Look at what you said a few posts back:


When are these guys going to come up with some definite scenarios like "WILL" melt away. They just don't know so the throw in the "could" melt away just to scare people.

I will starts listening when they start saying "will" melt away and here ist he reason why!Looks like the Gander gets special treatment in this discussion. :D

Excellent. Thanks for the laugh, you've really cheered me up today. :2tsup:

woodbe.

[rod@plasterbrok]

Good to see you still have a sense of humor. Now you have had a laugh you can see just how funny the AGW agenda has looked to others all along! I agree it just shows no one really knows what is going on for sure.

Yes it works both ways Woodbe now it is up to you which one you prefer to believe!

One theory that has empirical evidence to support it and some sound scientific basis or the pie in the sky models made up from a scientific theory that has no emperical evidence to support it.

Good to see you give it a nice bold heading :)

BTW did you read it? If so what part of it do you disagree with? Maybe you might attack the information for once instead of me :)

[dazzler]

Hi Rod,

you have been arguing all along that climate change is not proven and do nothing until its proven to your satisfaction. No probs. But the article you linked to says man IS influencing the change.

So fair enough for woodbe to point out the humour in that.

I dont think we need to kill anyway just yet. Just share what wealth we have with all in a sustainable way. By raising people above the poverty level they have less children which means less population.

there need not be any more debate about climate change. Just set about looking after the world, preparing for change, be it influenced by man or not, reduce our reliance on fossil fuel for it will run out, and live sustainably for all earthlings, not just us rich buggers.

[rod@plasterbrok]

The irony of the article is that they say the world will cool for the next 10 years but it is still warming by man.

They have bought themselves another 10 years to continue the charade yet the globe is actually cooling!

They hope that when it comes out of the cooling phase they can stoke up the argument for AGW warming again. Yep I know what the article said.

The proverty issue is interesting pehaps for another thread.

[woodbe]

Good to see you give it a nice bold heading :)

BTW did you read it? If so what part of it do you disagree with? Maybe you might attack the information for once :)

Actually the forum did that bold stuff, I just copy/pasted it. :2tsup:

I read enough of it to realise you probably hadn't read it all either. :U
I found no compulsion to agree or disagree with it. It's 'news' in a newspaper.

Why would I attack something I read in an online newspaper on an internet forum? :?

Rod, I'm just asking you to live up to the standards you proclaim the pro-AGW crowd should adhere to. By the way, you still haven't responded to my question about how you would like that GW-supporting Tasman Glacier melt reported so as to not offend your anti-AGW sensibilities.

woodbe.

[rod@plasterbrok]

Woodbe I think I have made it perfectly clear where I stand on the standards you mention irrespective of which side of the debate. They are both non committal so neither side really knows what the future holds or why. What we do know is the climate is not static, never was, nor ever will be. Natural occurance perhaps?

You seem to keep wanting to personalise this thread to an attack on me instead of an attack on the subject. Your trivial attacks on me have no relation to the overall argument presented in this thread. It seems fery atypical of many supporters of AGW to partake in this sort of activity. Thankfully most people see through this charade and focus on the debate, this is why the AGW theory is losing momentum.

It was built up by hysterical claims that could not be proven and then betean up by an equally hysterical media wanting sensational stories to sell papers. As momentum gathered it was taken up by politicians and politicized for electoral expediency. Now the unravelling has started to take place you will see people ducking for cover. But in the meantime, due to lack of further supporting scientific evidence or emperical evidence, they have turned to attaking the credibility of the sane people providing evidence that casts a shadow over AGW as their only defence.

Really obvious when you look at it objectivly without green coloured glasses.

[woodbe]

Really obvious when you look at it objectivly without green coloured glasses.

Agree. Those green coloured glasses are awful, depressing.

It all looks much better through rose coloured glasses. :2tsup:

woodbe.

[rod@plasterbrok]

Just a bit more reading material for discussion.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MWJlODMxYmUzYWNmZGZiM2NhNmExYTYyNDUzYmViZjQ=#more

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=a17defa8-802a-23ad-4912-8ab7138a7c3f&Issue_id

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/11/gores_deceptive_rolling_stone.html

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=3066

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=63360

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/05/04/do0405.xml

These types of articles rarerly get to see the light of day in the MSM shameful really.

As they filter through sentiment toward AGW will rapidly change as it gaining pace all the time.

[johnc]

Rod,

You have proved beyond doubt that you don't believe in global warming. You have also proved that you will grab any article no matter how unbalanced or dubious to support your view. Sadly you have also shown you know nothing about intelligent debate, or that you can show some sign that your view may have some imperfections or the opposite side may have some positives.

What you have achieved is a level of bigotry that comes from a closed mind, so how about not boring the life out of all of us and move onto something else for a change.

[rod@plasterbrok]

Johnc if it bores you so much simply dont read it.

I dont think it is me that has the closed mind here. It is the AGW supportes that have closed off the debate. They are the ones claiming the science is settled and try to shout down those who claim it is not.

What I am doing is demonstrating that the science is far from settled. When someone can come up with some scientific evidence that proves that AGW is real beyond doubt and that emissions can actually be reduced and if they are that there will be measurable benefit to justify the cost in doing so.

That is not to much to ask in return for the billions of $ about to be spent on trying to change the climate. Particularly when the biggest emitters wont play ball.

This makes no sense at all.

The cost to us for this folly is simply to huge to simply move on to something else as you suggest. It is just another example of shutting down the dissenters. Maybe you would prefer to see Australia going down this path.

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/feature/story.cfm?c_id=26&objectid=10507649

or more accurately this.

http://www.treasury.govt.nz/government/liabilities/kyoto

And this is a MUST READ if you are concerned about carbon trading scheme costs.

http://carbon-sense.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/emissions-trading-a-weapon-of-mass-taxation1.pdf

Expect to hear more when the costs start rolling in! You will be bored to death.