Perhaps Flannery the goose should work on banning jet engines as well , then kev would have to stay in China , then Id think he was a good fulla instead of an academic tool.Does this goose think ships ,freighters etc run on fresh air.
Perhaps Flannery the goose should work on banning jet engines as well , then kev would have to stay in China , then Id think he was a good fulla instead of an academic tool.
Hey Siegfried, this is him here, just in case you see him crossing the road in front of your car.
Flannery is the one with the bald head.
No wuckas , all going well Ill get the pair of em......poonces
True, regulating the emissions of outboard motors in Australia will have a very small impact. But, if outboard motors were regulated worldwide the impact would be great.Originally Posted by BaitThrower
Australia cannot command authority on environmental issues if it doesn't tidy up it's act at home. Our per capita emissions are ridiculous and China will be very quick to use that against us.
Name calling , making up lies, and saying mindless things when you clearly don't know what you are talking about, won't produce much at all. Grow up!
Have you read the Wikipiedia article yet, if so what did you think? Tell me why you believe the moon landing was real and then I will telly you why I don't think it was real. Surely you should be able to debate the point?
Just to encourage you a little bit: I think you have no idea about what you're talking about and do not know how to formulate an argument. The post that I quote is a great example alone, if you actually had read a bit about Global Warming and knew your stuff you would be able to recall what books/websites etc. had influenced your opinion.
Why do I believe what I believe about Global Warming? Primarily, Tim Flannery's book: The Weather Makers The History & Future Impact of Climate Change; and David Suzuki and Holly Dressel's Naked Ape to Superspecies. But, I also read what the papers (The Age, The Australian, and sometimes the Fin Review) have to say about the environment, I know that doesn't count because they're newspapers, after all they only want to report the news.
Let's see what you can come up with.
Geez Trippers, that was a useful post, you show me yours, then Ill show you mine stuff
how about you stand up for something for once, shock us with some facts for a change, your the self appointed planet champion, how about you put up? if your best is newspapers and wiki then no-one can take you seriously..
Trippers I thought you had more ticker. I didnt want to write you off so soon,, it was so short mate... ah well..another in the washout bin...
Trippers you should pass the baton mate to someone who at least has some facts, your making the Green movement look bad, not that they need help mate.
mike
Tangles KFC
Yeah, crazy that debating stuff, never produces anything.Geez Trippers, that was a useful post, you show me yours, then Ill show you mine stuff
how about you stand up for something for once, shock us with some facts for a change, your the self appointed planet champion, how about you put up? if your best is newspapers and wiki then no-one can take you seriously..
Trippers I thought you had more ticker. I didnt want to write you off so soon,, it was so short mate... ah well..another in the washout bin...
Trippers you should pass the baton mate to someone who at least has some facts, your making the Green movement look bad, not that they need help mate.
mike
Primarily means firstly or most importantly; when I say "Primarily, Tim Flannery's book: The Weather Makers The History & Future Impact of Climate Change; and David Suzuki and Holly Dressel's Naked Ape to Superspecies," I mean to say most importantly.
I don't understand where you're coming from. It appears as though you've proven me wrong or at least said something intelligent; which you haven't of course.
That should appease you:
• Average temperatures have climbed 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.8 degree Celsius) around the world since 1880, much of this in recent decades, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
• The rate of warming is increasing. The 20th century's last two decades were the hottest in 400 years and possibly the warmest for several millennia, according to a number of climate studies. And the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports that 11 of the past 12 years are among the dozen warmest since 1850.
• The Arctic is feeling the effects the most. Average temperatures in Alaska, western Canada, and eastern Russia have risen at twice the global average, according to the multinational Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report compiled between 2000 and 2004.
• Arctic ice is rapidly disappearing, and the region may have its first completely ice-free summer by 2040 or earlier. Polar bears and indigenous cultures are already suffering from the sea-ice loss.
• Glaciers and mountain snows are rapidly melting—for example, Montana's Glacier National Park now has only 27 glaciers, versus 150 in 1910. In the Northern Hemisphere, thaws also come a week earlier in spring and freezes begin a week later.
• Coral reefs, which are highly sensitive to small changes in water temperature, suffered the worst bleaching—or die-off in response to stress—ever recorded in 1998, with some areas seeing bleach rates of 70 percent. Experts expect these sorts of events to increase in frequency and intensity in the next 50 years as sea temperatures rise.
• An upsurge in the amount of extreme weather events, such as wildfires, heat waves, and strong tropical storms, is also attributed in part to climate change by some experts.
Taken from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...l_warming.html
You've got to love the repetition of those same old boring facts don't you. Do you really need me to repeat them!
BTW, Have you learnt what deduction means?
"And, fighting in the no credibility corner, it's AXXX!"
You made the stupid remark.
You have failed to back it up.
It is your responsibility to do so.
Until you do so, your credibility is gone. What I have typed is more than you deserve.
Tim
Carbon Really Ain't Pollution.
Honest (but not that I really care) the bulk above has so many holes in it, it's been refuted one hundred times over under real science, do some research, some of what you say is entirely normal, some is due to the poor confidence level of data that was used to assume temperature by not good people, some because the terms of reference was stacked causing the not sloppy not Zealot scientists to quit in disgust at great personal cost, hopping of the the global warming gravy train.
Most falls precisely within normal variance. none relates to carbon/co2 -it cannot anyway. Some is just folly and is easy action-reaction (we know that if we kick a dog it will probably move) which is simple sense.
20 years ago we were supposed to be flooded right now. Yet nothing that is not normal variance has happened - anywhere worldwide! as per non sloppy science.
Our last dry the zealots had pegged as global warming proof, did you?? - real science didn't - the zealots did - every single one!
Read up on Kaos theory and the environment - we do not live i in a 6 foot terrarium with a komodo dragon.
It's easy to believe in a cult, but to do so a person must stay blinkered - do some research from an open eyed vantage point, weigh up the rational.
I suspect that the very moment the Zealots have some evidence that is not first and foremost based on a grade 10 text book we will hear it, so far nothing of substance has resulted and all this from a billion hours of human endeavour worldwide expressly designed to find something -anything.
We cannot help you if you do not help yourself, you are but a curiosity here without both sides of the theory to draw your rational from, we do.
cheers fnq
Thank you for responding to my post.
So what impact does CO2 have upon the environment, does it just cause trees to grow faster? Come on, you can't just say it doesn't matter.
It's a scientific fact that Coal fired power plants produce CO2, cars cause CO2: the burning of fossil fuels creates CO2. So therefore humans have increased CO2 levels unnaturally. Does it just not matter, if so explain to me why.
It's well established now that the IPCC was edited by many governments. Do you think that they edited the report in favour of acting upon climate change or edited to conform to them wanting to continue business as usual with a few extra taxes? They reported a 90% certainty, do you reckon they inflated that figure so they could heap more taxes upon you?
I think you need to wake up to yourself!! Telling someone that they should be open minded about climate change when you're clearly not is just so idiotic. Are all Global Warming proponents zealots? Are all the people that disagree with you zealots?
Fast! -You got me when I was still editing.
pink: The carbon cycle is quite well understood at this level, you need to read up on it, I cannot fill those blank spaces - the science first not the zealot's rational - always science first.
\Be assured once you understand the cycle at least a little bit the carbon threat soon disappears, the Zealots divining of magical properties to co2 only fool the foolish, the greenhouse Zealot's have NOTHING else to prop them up, it's a house of cards, never let the truth get in the way of a good story. read up on it.
Orange:Better to do the study outlined in pink and get back me why at the levels cited worldwide (remember rational before everything else) could ever be a cause for real concern. Remember the earth's complexes are FAR more involved than the environment of a terrarium.
Blue: So.. when does a report become a report?? do the research and find out what the confidence levels of the data use were, find out what forces went into deciding which figures to use.
Much data was ignored -why where the honest scientists pissed off? -you will not find out why on zealots websites. do real research.
Green: mate I look at you as a flat-earther, a Scientologist or any number of emotion before competent reasoning causes, or just plain simple - sorry but the level of your replies amount to rhetoric with no substance outside of it. Educate yourself outside of the zealot's mantra, cause and reaction is typical ....remember....... why is it so??
cheers fnq
Firstly, your biggest mistake is trusting and beleiving everything the government has to say. The biggest thing the g'ment likes using is statistics.... 90% certainty... they make things sound worse than they are. The g'ment won't edit reports to suit their needs, they just pick things out that sound bad and go with them for "the greater good". pfffttt.
If your worried about global warming, what about global freezing. Greenland use to be inhabited by the Vikings, but they moved on because of global freezing and couldn't adapt. Greenland is now reverting back to it's natural self of being a lush farmland and "green". Now for those zealots out there that say this is because of global warming are very narrow minded. They only want to look at that "statistic" (oh i said it again) and come straight to the conclusion that the world "must" be warming up and this is the consequence.
AN ACTUAL FACT is that the figures the g'ment are using are based on data 7+ years ago when we hit a warm patch in the generation. Since then things have actually cooled down... but the g'ment being the g'ment and acting on things years too late, they won't get this information for another 5 years.
CO2 does not matter. NOt sure of his name, but the guy who reported on global warming then changed his point on view from actual facts even said that if CO2 was a major problem then they would have seen a huge area of CO2 or a hole above the ozone layer above the equator, but there is not. so clearly CO2 is not affecting the climate like you seam to think it is.
for god sakes, it's a natural component in the creation of life and life on this planet as we know it.
tell me "How is CO2 bad"?????????
Some are part of the cult of climate sceptics. Some of us are in the cult of humans worried about the survival of the species. The argument is a bit like religious debate. My cult is right yours is wrong.
But here is the rub,...neither can be 100% sure. So what if we are right. Can you afford to do nothing?? What is the harm in being more aware of our carbon footprint, or our pollution.
We all love to fish and love the outdoor life. We love clean water and clean air. That is to say we care about our natural environment. Yet, (and this is the confusing bit) you slag off at Greens. Their message is the same as yours, ie we love our natural environment and want to preserve it. What is that about?. Are you getting caught up in party political rhetoric and missing the message??
Its a mystery.
BTW, some nice tailor off the rocks at Lennox this morning.
The Sixty Minutes story was certainly interesting.
Just one little point. Can you actually make Co2? or is a case of releasing Co2 when you burn petrol. I remember something from school about not being able to destroy or create these elements but only change their state.
http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/a...aspx?id=614370
How the f#$@ would flannery knw S*&% from sixpence tripper, I am sure this tool is /was a biologist-Where does he get his info, NASA etc ,mobs you dont believe etc. 2 things are certain though- Flannerys making a good living peddelling this sh%^ as are alot of other people. And me, well I dont know but there are some (lots of) eminent people out there with more credibility then him that dont entertain the whole GW theory (and it is only a theory). I have visions of you growing up and living with Al Gore and Flannery in a house in Waco texas. Or maybe youll just get educated get job be in debt up to your arse like the rest of us and be too busy feeding kids to worry about this rot. Me Im gonna burn as much diesel and catch as many fish as I can before I cark it
Read an article a while ago about CO2 emissions and highlighted how much CO2 is emitted when a volcano erupts. Puts all our cars, boats and power stations to shame.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote