What a thread I started. They say that "having twins is taking seriously whats poked at you in fun" and I guess thats what seems to be in the responses - lots of fun but with some serious undertones.
I still believe if we reduce dirty emissions, clean up the world and reduce the human population by about 3 billion we can all start fishing again with fewer worries. We could start by eliminating 1.5 billion politicians, 1 billion greenies and half a billion scientists! I'll let you guys select the countries!
Plato
A very senior IPCC Official, and I quote:
"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore,"
http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1877-ip...ds-wealth.html
There it is Folks.
Tim
Carbon Really Ain't Pollution.
When i went to UNI as a young but mature age student, i thought that it was going to be a little like it was depicted in the wider media/society, largely a talk fest with some writing involved...I had to pull my head in big time as it was all dry science and the principles surrounding it in the field I chose.
I was taught dryly and with solid scientific reasoning that surrounds it why and without delving directly into any popularist junk science how co2 CANNOT no way not ever have the ability without a massive true shift in total climate and the mechanisms that control it do what the spooks think it happening in the concentrations they say it is happening/can happen.
Other gasses sure but not CO2, there has been an AGW crackpot element that goes way back to the 60s where even then a belief in global warming existed. They tried very hard to get whatever hypotheses available started in the publics mind that fossil fuels where just bad.
The early fossil fuels haters (same level scientists and science as today as in AGW) tried this one on...that jet plane traffic con trails when extrapolated 30 years to the 90s will increase (because of population and flight number increases) over Europe to the degree that they will warm the continent aka a provincial AGW scare tactic.
This was done with science and understandings in the chemistry involved not truly that much lower than today's solidly understood principles.
Still even today after closer to 60 years of global warming research/funding we have nothing approaching evidence nor proof in any real science that advances upon even that early European hypotheses, AGW today still is a science with every claim no higher than that of of a marketed skin care product and the sad thing is it doesn't need to be to get the real reasoning behind AGW accomplished.
Seriously AGW still a hypotheses, not the mass marketed theory they try and sprook it as, every single time under real science they try to break free of their hypotheses for AGW to become a scientific theory it fails big time and spectacularly......the failure to find they smoking gun - an atmospheric signature is one most notable example......bang! stright back to nothing higher in real science than skin care science.
We as a result for almost decades now we have had gross numbers of eminent people world wide quitting their well paid and beloved positions after becoming disillusioned with what their life's science has been replaced by. Saddly guess the character types that replaces these honest scientists??
I hold 0 net fear for my daughters future under AGW...from climate anyway.
Article does not in any way shape or form suggest climate change is a myth
Much better to have the full answer to the question rather than just an extract,gives it more context !.
"First of all, developed countries have basically expropriatedthe atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."
It talks more about the economics of it and the opinions of one chappy.
How does it go ?, no factual data just the opinion of one.
DoNotFeedTheTrollsAandBelligerent
that's a great quote timi. i actually don't agree with the words "any more" in it as i don't believe international climate policy was EVER about the environment. it was always about the public image of a group of politicians who gathered to try and get a pat on the back from the rest of the world for setting an unrealistic agenda with unrealistic targets on something we know nothing about.
and i'm not saying climate change is a myth because i don't really know. nor am i saying we shouldn't pay for research, because we should. but to have knee jerk policies that will affect the everyday life of all of us, based on a yet unknown problem, is ridiculous.
all of this withstanding though, if we would consume less, recycle more and therefore pollute less, the world would stay nicer for longer.
Ottmar Edenhofer was appointed as joint chair of Working Group 3 at the Twenty-Ninth Session of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in Geneva, Switzerland. The deputy director and chief economist of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) and Professor of the Economics of Climate Change at the Berlin Institute of Technology will be co-chairing the Working Group “Mitigation of Climate Change”Originally Posted by Steeler
Hardly "just one chappy." This is a guy central to IPCC policy formulation, and he's at the head of two of Europe's most influential "Scientific" Establishments. His opinion is highly likely to be representative of the organisations he's involved with.
And no, it certainly doesn't say it's a myth, that's not the point. The point is that it is being used to redistribute wealth. Socialism on a grand scale, so we can all be equal; equally unhappy...
And that's right, no facts used, he doesn't need to, because anything and everything an alarmist or the IPCC says doesn't need to be based on fact, people just swallow it.
Tim
Carbon Really Ain't Pollution.
I will clearly state my thoughts on climate change for ridicule for those who feel the need to.
Do i believe in climate change,yep sure do.
I am also undecided on whether its happening at an alarming rate.
Am i prepared to make minor adjustments to my lifestyle in the event of a maybe,Yep.
Do i also believe there are others out there who deny climate change because it just might mean having to make changes to there lifestyle also,Yep.
Flame away,being honest with ones self is good for the soul.
DoNotFeedTheTrollsAandBelligerent
For any that are interested and hold an open mind, run a simple moving average through this correspondence it's as good as it gets.
No worldwide climate science operate ANY higher than what is contained here, nor have they ever.....CSIRO, IPCC, various US agencies, NASA etc.
http://assassinationscience.com/climategate/
I love what science has become today, is there any agency/organisation world wide taking AGW funding that one would not be fired from or at least stuck forever going nowhere if one openly disbelieved???
Just try and get any climate/environmental job here in Australia without first exercising your pro AGW/pro environmental radicalism/ideology.
We are so mentally screwed up.
FYI steeler do you understand that by openly stating you believe in "climate change" you are stating no position and a known constant understood to continue past when this planet will have been consumed by our Sun??
Climate change has been happening long before even the existence of the first primordial soup, it happened today here at my address and in the back yard.
I just wonder how many others on here actually also believe in climate change to an extent but are not inclined to say so for fear of being flamed.Me i am entitled to an opinion and i shall.
Am i some sort of extremist greenie,not by a long shot.
I but i do concur with what Bob Katter had to say on the subject and that was,is it really so painful to make minor adjustments to our lifestyle as a preventative measure.
DoNotFeedTheTrollsAandBelligerent
That website is linked with the assasination science website. Which deals with 911 conspiracy and JFK conspiracy and countless other conspiracies. I did a little domain checking and its owned by James Henry Fetzer who is a well known conspiracy guru.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Henry_Fetzer.
And also owns this site. http://www.assassinationscience.com/
Now this John P Costella, who wrote the article you qouted in that website, lives in melbourne (not going to give his exact adress) and is also pretty well known for conspiracy theories and is heavily involved with Assassinationscience.com.
He has written 94 page articles on why the Zapruder film is a fake.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zapruder_film
So obviously he thinks the JFK shooting was staged and the official footage is fake.
He has now started analysing the climategate saga because the people he preached his JFK crap to are starting to realise his full of it as can be seen here.
http://www.craiglamson.com/costella2.htm
Then i did a simple check of his youtube account and its full of subscriptions to Alex jones show and CitizenInvestigator which both deal with conspiracies and try to link them all together and in the end make themselves a lot of money on merchandise and videos.
In everything I have ever quoted anywhere, ever, I have resisted the temptation to quote Wiki. It's trash. Students get just about kicked out of Uni for quoting it...
In any case, this commentary on Climategate does raise very interesting questions, and it's conclusions are generally (though not always) quite easily supported by a community which is willing to get off the Religious bandwagon for a minute. Ad hominem attacks do nothing to criticise the argument, but they speak reams about the person doing the criticising.
Cheers,
Tim
Carbon Really Ain't Pollution.
Did you even look at any of the links. Just look at the assassination science website and tell me it doesn't scream extremist.
Thats what they say about the psychology of a conspiracy nut though, wiling to dismiss hard evidence to prove their own belief.
Wiki is frowned upon at uni. They wont kick you out if you quote it you just have prove what is said.
Might be an interesting poll to do on this website, seeing as it is a hot topic.
How about:
Do you believe in Climate Change Y N
Do you believe CO2 affects the Climate Y N
Do you believe humans production of CO2 affects the Climate Y N
Do you believe CO2 should be regulated Y N
Do you believe emissions from industry create environmental damage Y N
Do you believe other emissions / pollution should be regulated Y N
Do you trust science publications on Climate Change (for or against) Y N
I have no idea how to do a poll type thread, but if someone can be bothered....
I know there is a lot of 'believes' in there, but it seems to come down to what and who you trust and believe, as to what view you take, as few of us are professional climate scientists. Would be interesting to know what the general consensus among Forum-Using-Fishermen is.
Murdoch
I know the site, and I agree it's pretty flaky. That doesn't mean the Climategate commentary is wrong though. It is well written and organised, and reaches plausible conclusions. Also not written by Fetzer. I have read the same commentary linked from other sites. Ad hominem does not prove anything.
And I said "just about kicked out." If you quote Wiki you will get zero credit for the reference.
Thanks,
Tim
Carbon Really Ain't Pollution.
Murdoch, I respect your passion, but if you believe everything the US Gov't (or any other Gov't for that matter) ever said or says, you're in for a rough ride! Some of us who have been round the block more than a couple of times have developed a healthy scepticism.......JFK conspiracy theory is hardy 'extremist' by any definition, what are the proponants suggesting, armed civil uprising, urban terrorism perhaps? .......I would suggest you peruse William Manchester's book on the subject (Death Of A President) for an alternate view, if you have an interest.
And always remember, for better or worse, "money talks, bulls#it walks".
Cheers.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote