Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index
 The RulesThe Rules FAQFAQ
   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   CalendarCalendar   SearchSearch 
Log inLog in RegisterRegister
 
The climate change furphy - when will it end?

Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern
 
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Skids Cancer



Joined: 11 Sep 2007
Location: Joined 3/6/02 ... aka Assassin member #175

PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 12:29 pm
Post subject: The climate change furphy - when will it end?Reply with quote

As we enter the 3rd month of what was supposed to be "an above average cyclone season", we're still yet to see one cross the coast.

When is the sea level going to rise like it was suposed to and why are there more polar bears than ever before?

Coz it's a crock! That's why!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That ), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.

They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.

_________________
“I doubt I will be an assistant coach. They have to watch the game three times from three different angles and I struggle to watch the highlights on the news.” Swanny
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Warnings : 1 
npalm 



Joined: 01 May 2005


PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 1:03 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

So, when it comes to climate change, you would rather listen to a Murdoch 'journalist' than the major national science academies of the world?
_________________
Side by side.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Pies4shaw 



Joined: 08 Oct 2007


PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 1:11 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

^^^ Well, it's obviously a lot easier to accept that there is a dishonest conspiracy of hundreds of thousands of the world's leading scientists than that a journalist might be pushing a barrow.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Skids Cancer



Joined: 11 Sep 2007
Location: Joined 3/6/02 ... aka Assassin member #175

PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 2:05 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm in the majority on this one, but of course, the Vic Park brainys kbow what's really going on Rolling Eyes
Coz this tavern has some of the worlds leading masterminds.... just ask them Wink


http://reneweconomy.com.au/most-australians-dont-believe-climate-change-caused-by-humans-csiro-55806/

A huge 38.6 per cent of respondents said they believed climate change was happening, but was just part of natural fluctuations in the earth’s temperatures. And when you combine that number with those who don’t think it’s happening at all, and those who are undecided, you have a total of 54.2 per cent – more than half of those surveyed – who aren’t convinced by the science.

_________________
“I doubt I will be an assistant coach. They have to watch the game three times from three different angles and I struggle to watch the highlights on the news.” Swanny
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Warnings : 1 
Culprit Cancer



Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Port Melbourne

PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 3:11 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Have a look at the F Wits in the Liberal Party pushing their bull about how it's all a beat up and a scam. The same people believe the Bible is fact. Give me a break.

I would rather the climate change predictors be wrong than the climate change skeptics. One side has to be wrong.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website  
HAL 

Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.


Joined: 17 Mar 2003


PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 3:14 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

I a not kidding.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  
Skids Cancer



Joined: 11 Sep 2007
Location: Joined 3/6/02 ... aka Assassin member #175

PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 6:50 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

http://climatechangedispatch.com/climate-change-predictions-incorrect/

Climate change predictions have been wrong for decades. Let’s look at some. At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.” C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, “The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.” In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich predicted that there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and that “in the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people (would) starve to death.” Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989 and that by 1999, the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich’s predictions about England were gloomier. He said, “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”

In 1970, Harvard University biologist George Wald predicted, “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” Sen. Gaylord Nelson, in Look magazine in April 1970, said that by 1995, “somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals (would) be extinct.”

_________________
“I doubt I will be an assistant coach. They have to watch the game three times from three different angles and I struggle to watch the highlights on the news.” Swanny
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Warnings : 1 
What'sinaname 



Joined: 29 May 2010
Location: In the cloud

PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 7:43 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm buying big parcels of land inland in the expectation it will be coastal in 50 years.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
watt price tully Scorpio



Joined: 15 May 2007


PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 8:29 pm
Post subject: Re: The climate change furfy - when will it end?Reply with quote

Skids wrote:
As we enter the 3rd month of what was supposed to be "an above average cyclone season", we're still yet to see one cross the coast.

When is the sea level going to rise like it was suposed to and why are there more polar bears than ever before?

Coz it's a crock! That's why!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That ), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.

They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.


This is Skids reference (from wiki):

Christopher John Penrice Booker (born 7 October 1937) is an English journalist and author. In 1961, he was one of the founders of the magazine Private Eye, and has contributed to it since then. He has been a columnist for The Sunday Telegraph since 1990.[1] Despite having no medical or scientific qualifications he has taken a stance which runs counter to the scientific consensus on a number of issues, including global warming, the link between passive smoking and cancer,[2] and the dangers posed by asbestos.[3] In 2009, he published The Real Global Warming Disaster. In 2005, with Richard North, he published The Great Deception, an analysis of beginnings and growth of the European Union which has been regularly updated. In addition there are related books The Castle of Lies' (1997)[4] which look at both European and British bureaucracy.[5][6] The UK Family Courts and the Social Services often feature in his Sunday Telegraph section.[7]



I think John Maynard Keynes is relevant here

“It is better to keep quiet and seem ignorant,” ....“than to speak up and remove all doubt.”

Next.... Rolling Eyes

_________________
Attorney: Chicolini, when were you born? Chicolini: I don't remember. I was just a little baby. (Chico Marx in Duck Soup)
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
watt price tully Scorpio



Joined: 15 May 2007


PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 8:33 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Culprit wrote:
Have a look at the F Wits in the Liberal Party pushing their bull about how it's all a beat up and a scam. The same people believe the Bible is fact. Give me a break.

I would rather the climate change predictors be wrong than the climate change skeptics. One side has to be wrong.


I loved the NZ MP calling Malcolm Roberts of coal industry fame & Hanson's one notion party "the Vilage idiot" recently Laughing Laughing

_________________
Attorney: Chicolini, when were you born? Chicolini: I don't remember. I was just a little baby. (Chico Marx in Duck Soup)
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Mugwump 



Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne

PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 8:47 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Anyone who has been alive for 55 years, as I have, knows from experience that the climate is changing/warming. When you can personally observe an effect, and there is a reasonable theory as to the causes of that effect involving an empirically-testable process, and it is supported by the great majority of respectable scientific opinion, and the consequences are potentially catastrophic, it is best to take it seriously and take action.
_________________
Two more flags before I die!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
stui magpie 

dum nei, sakte ja


Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: Where ever i go, there I am

PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 8:57 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

^

You haven't lived in Aus for how long?

_________________
I'd like to apologise to anyone I haven't offended yet. Be patient, I'm working through a list. You're entitled to your own opinion, but if it disagrees with mine, it's wrong.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Mugwump 



Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne

PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:27 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

stui magpie wrote:
^

You haven't lived in Aus for how long?


Left in 1998, so 18 years. Visit regularly, usually for several weeks in August, where it seems to me that the nights below zero are noticeably fewer than they were in 1996-98. In any event, the Australian BOM record data is clear, as is the effect on coral in the Barrier Reef.

It is certainly clearly observable in Northern Europe. I've lived in the Uk, NL or Germany from 1991-94, then 1998-2017 (Australia in the 1994-1998 period). The change in the severity of winters here in that time is striking, visible in the timing of daffodil and crocus, the days of snow cover, and the average winter day temperature.

_________________
Two more flags before I die!


Last edited by Mugwump on Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:52 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

Reel around the fountain


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Pripyat, in spirit

PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:39 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Skids wrote:
http://climatechangedispatch.com/climate-change-predictions-incorrect/

Climate change predictions have been wrong for decades. Let’s look at some. At the first Earth Day celebration, in 1969, environmentalist Nigel Calder warned, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.” C.C. Wallen of the World Meteorological Organization said, “The cooling since 1940 has been large enough and consistent enough that it will not soon be reversed.” In 1968, Professor Paul Ehrlich predicted that there would be a major food shortage in the U.S. and that “in the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people (would) starve to death.” Ehrlich forecasted that 65 million Americans would die of starvation between 1980 and 1989 and that by 1999, the U.S. population would have declined to 22.6 million. Ehrlich’s predictions about England were gloomier. He said, “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.”

In 1970, Harvard University biologist George Wald predicted, “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.” Sen. Gaylord Nelson, in Look magazine in April 1970, said that by 1995, “somewhere between 75 and 85 percent of all the species of living animals (would) be extinct.”


This is a similar tactic used by creationists to cast doubt on evolutionary science – they point to extravagant, incorrect claims (particularly those made in the formative years of the discipline) as evidence that the science is not to be trusted.

The key point they miss, of course, is that the whole method of science is to question, update and, if necessary, discard hypotheses. The fact that we know some early claims about evolution were wildly incorrect is testament to the development of that field of research – a development that has at no stage invalidated the basic theory, but instead strengthened and refined it to the point that practically no thinking person without ulterior motives has reason to doubt that we are the products of an evolutionary process. Climate change is a similar case, although as a much younger field it perhaps has had less opportunity to achieve equal cultural legitimacy to evolution.

The difference between the 40-year-old pronouncements quoted in your article and the claims made today by respected scientific organisations is that those early claims (I suspect) were outliers and not representative of any consensus – indeed, there probably was little in the way of consensus at that stage. That, as we know, has changed, just as the consensus solidified around quantum mechanics, evolution and gravity before it. There comes a point when a theory becomes sufficiently established that it is no longer a subject of reasonable doubt, and debate can move on to the finer questions of how it operates. My impression is that the scientific community has well and truly reached that stage with climate change now.

Of course, we know precisely why some people still doubt the theory of evolution. It's because it's inconvenient, and seen as incompatible with their belief in the historical accuracy of the Bible. That is not, to put it lightly, a scientific approach. Likewise, it does not strike me as odd at all that the biggest climate sceptics are from the fossil fuel lobby, funded by the fossil fuel lobby or involved with political parties funded by the fossil fuel lobby – and those views, naturally, filter down to people whose views align with those political parties (see the echo chamber effect being discussed over in the 'WTF' thread). If you understand the motivations involved, I don't see why you would see that inevitable dissent as more compelling than the same rigorous scientific method we see applied to all the other stuff we take for granted (astronomy, physics and so on).

_________________
"Pence must know that his frantic acts of abusing the sacred Olympics for confrontational ruckus are as foolish and stupid an act as sweeping the sea with a broom" – North Korean newspaper
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
Skids Cancer



Joined: 11 Sep 2007
Location: Joined 3/6/02 ... aka Assassin member #175

PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 10:04 pm
Post subject: Re: The climate change furfy - when will it end?Reply with quote

watt price tully wrote:
Skids wrote:
As we enter the 3rd month of what was supposed to be "an above average cyclone season", we're still yet to see one cross the coast.

When is the sea level going to rise like it was suposed to and why are there more polar bears than ever before?

Coz it's a crock! That's why!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

There are three threads in particular in the leaked documents which have sent a shock wave through informed observers across the world. Perhaps the most obvious, as lucidly put together by Willis Eschenbach (see McIntyre's blog Climate Audit and Anthony Watt's blog Watts Up With That ), is the highly disturbing series of emails which show how Dr Jones and his colleagues have for years been discussing the devious tactics whereby they could avoid releasing their data to outsiders under freedom of information laws.

They have come up with every possible excuse for concealing the background data on which their findings and temperature records were based.


This is Skids reference (from wiki):

Christopher John Penrice Booker (born 7 October 1937) is an English journalist and author. In 1961, he was one of the founders of the magazine Private Eye, and has contributed to it since then. He has been a columnist for The Sunday Telegraph since 1990.[1] Despite having no medical or scientific qualifications he has taken a stance which runs counter to the scientific consensus on a number of issues, including global warming, the link between passive smoking and cancer,[2] and the dangers posed by asbestos.[3] In 2009, he published The Real Global Warming Disaster. In 2005, with Richard North, he published The Great Deception, an analysis of beginnings and growth of the European Union which has been regularly updated. In addition there are related books The Castle of Lies' (1997)[4] which look at both European and British bureaucracy.[5][6] The UK Family Courts and the Social Services often feature in his Sunday Telegraph section.[7]



I think John Maynard Keynes is relevant here

“It is better to keep quiet and seem ignorant,” ....“than to speak up and remove all doubt.”

Next.... Rolling Eyes


Ok smart arse.... here's another scientist view who also has a different opinions to the garbage fed to us by the media....

George Kukla

George Kukla (born Jiří Kukla; 14 March 1930 – 31 May 2014) was a senior research scientist at the Lamont–Doherty Earth Observatory of Columbia University.[1]

Kukla was a member of the Czechoslovakian Academy of Sciences, prior to emigrating to the US, and a pioneer in the field of astronomical climate forcing. In 1972 he became a central figure in convincing the United States government to take the dangers of climate change seriously.[1] Kukla and geologist, Robert Matthews of Brown University, convened a historic conference, themed: "The Present Interglacial: How and When will it End?" Kukla and Matthews then highlighted the dangers of global cooling in Science magazine and, to President Richard Nixon.

The Nixon administration reacted swiftly to their letter, which described calamities such as killer frosts, lower food production and floods, to come. By February 1973, the State Department had established a Panel on the Present Interglacial, which advised Drs. Kukla and Matthews that it "was seized of the matter" and numerous other government agencies were soon included.

Kukla was co-author of a chapter in the book "Natural Climate Variability on Decade to Century Time Scales" published by the National Research Council.

Kukla believed all glacial periods in Earth's history began with global warming (understood as an increase of area-weighted average global mean temperature). He believed Earth's recent warming is mostly natural and will ultimately lead to a new ice age.
Prophet of the Next Ice Age

A hero from the glory days of discovery half a century ago, before the sophistry about man-made global warming invaded climate science, will be speaking at the Fourth International Conference on Climate Change in Chicago, 16-18 May 2010.



Kukla at work in Czechoslovakia, from The Weather Machine (book). Photo by courtesy of G. Kukla.
In the 1960s a respected geologist in his native Czechoslovakia, George Kukla, counted the layers of loess – windblown mineral dust ground by the glaciers and laid down in the region during recent ice ages. They were separated by darker material left over from warm interglacial periods. Kukla found too many layers of loess. Until then, almost everyone thought that there were just four recent glacial ages, with long interglacials between them. An exception was Cesare Emiliani, who in Chicago in 1955 had traced major variations in heavy oxygen in seabed fossils, and counted seven ice ages. Very few experts believed him until Kukla reported at least nine loess layers in the brickyards of Czechoslovakia.

Following the ill-fated bid for democracy in the “Prague Spring” of 1968 Kukla emerged from behind the Iron Curtain and found refuge at Columbia’s Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory (now called the Earth Observatory) where he still works.

The observatory perches beside the former glacier valley of the Hudson River. And down at water level Alec Nisbett of BBC-TV filmed Kukla for our multinational TV blockbuster called “The Weather Machine”, broadcast in 1974. By then the count of ice ages had increased still further and the reasons for the comings-and-goings of the ice were better understood. And as you can view here (after a patch of narration read grandly by the actor Eric Porter) Kukla issued a warning. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v-Vn5AStFWo

Added 16 May: The wonders of WordPress feedback tell me that only 10% of visitors to this story follow the YouTube link, so I’ll put in the transcript.

Narrator: Will a new ice age claim our lands and bury our northern cities? It’s buried Manhattan Island before, when great glaciers half a mile thick filled the valley of New York’s Hudson River. That’s what an ice age is all about. George Kukla is from Czechoslovakia, where he discovered signs that ice ages are far more frequent that most experts have supposed. Today he continues his work near New York City. For him, the next ice age is not at all remote.

George Kukla: Well almost all of us have been pretty sure that there were only four ice ages, separated by relatively long warm intervals. But now we know that there were twenty in the last two million years. And the warm periods are much shorter than we believed originally. They are something around 10,000 years long. and I’m sorry to say that the one we are living in now has just passed its 10,000 year birthday. That of course means that the ice age is due now any time.

In this post I’ll summarize what was going on in the mid-1970s, about ice age science and climate policy, before catching up with what Kukla thinks nowadays about the coming ice age.

There's many more if you care to take your blinkers off.... but of course, you won't, you believe the crap you're fed by the media.

_________________
“I doubt I will be an assistant coach. They have to watch the game three times from three different angles and I struggle to watch the highlights on the news.” Swanny
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Warnings : 1 
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern All times are GMT + 10 Hours

Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 10, 11, 12  Next
Page 1 of 12   

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum



Privacy Policy

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group