fly_tornado Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 He said a saving in the vicinity of 17 per cent sounded significant, but only translated into four years' worth of total CO2 emissions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 A 17% fluctuation is well within what the Climate Scientists of the day from CSIRO and the Intergovernmental Panel members of the day were saying around 2001. In fact a 50% error factor would not be out of the question. They were predicting sea level rises of between 2 mm and 50 mm. Then the sensationalists squeezed them out and we saw sea level predictions as high as 2 metres. Greg Hunt has been around all that time, and I think he put a fair case on the twin issues of improving humanity at the same time as preserving the environment and some temperature sensitive species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 and another http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-14/climate-change-study-reveals-sea-level-steady-for-6000-years/5810440 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 .just make sure you read the Whole article Yeah right, next you be asking us to read the whole manual for our planes, cars etc as well ..... This bit ... "University of Melbourne climate scientist Peter Rayner said the study allowed for more understanding on how nature absorbed CO2." ... is what I referred to above that there's always enough to cast doubt in any of their findings. They didn't see this happening and all of the other factors they haven't seen - you can't see what didn't see and you can't know what you didn't know. Anyway, I'm off to put in a research fund for the further understanding of CO2 absorbtion rates under heightened CO2 environment conditions, $1.2 million over 3 years should about cover it. By the way, I wonder did the computer running the analysis account for it's own emmissions output while running the numbers? Isn't it ironic .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 and another http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-14/climate-change-study-reveals-sea-level-steady-for-6000-years/5810440 Hmm, coincidence not and Krakatoa the main culprit! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large_volcanic_eruptions_of_the_19th_century http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_large_volcanic_eruptions_of_the_20th_century Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
octave Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 Bexrbetter, a question for you, could you please tell me whether all the scientific organisations listed in this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change are in some sort of world wide conspiracy to subvert the data in order to attract funding? if so, how does this work? for example does NASA tell our BOM to alter their temperature data to match their satellite data? If you are asserting scientific fraud you probably ought to supply rational evidence. If the worlds scientists are so corrupt that they can commit scientific fraud in order to secure funding, not just individually but in a mass coordinated way then why is it that they can't be just as easily bought by the coal industry, don't you think that a least some scientific organizations could be bought? What I advocate is not a knee jerk reaction but a refocusing on to the new forms of energy creation, if I am wrong about that I guess I will have to apologize to my grand children for electricity not being the cheapest it could be or perhaps that our economy is not quite as healthy as it could have been. I am intellectually honest enough with myself to admit that I could be wrong but are you 100% sure that your theory of a world wide conspiracy between the worlds scientific organisations is true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 you tell em bex! Could it be that in the 7000 years since god created the universe we haven't done a great deal of climate science? Think about all those aeronautical engineers 100 years ago begging for research funding to make planes fly better, sadly they are still needing money for research. or the easy answer, the answer every idiot can understand... [ATTACH]47458._xfImport[/ATTACH] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 you tell em bex! Could it be that in the 7000 years since god created the universe we haven't done a great deal of climate science? Think about all those aeronautical engineers 100 years ago begging for research funding to make planes fly better, sadly they are still needing money for research. or the easy answer, the answer every idiot can understand... [ATTACH=full]32387[/ATTACH] I gave you a optimistic purely because you mentioned a God and whether a god exists or not and creating the universe is pure speulation. Not everyone is brain washed when it comes down to religious fairy tails. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 A 17% fluctuation is well within what the Climate Scientists of the day from CSIRO and the Intergovernmental Panel members of the day were saying around 2001. In fact a 50% error factor would not be out of the question. They were predicting sea level rises of between 2 mm and 50 mm. Then the sensationalists squeezed them out and we saw sea level predictions as high as 2 metres.Greg Hunt has been around all that time, and I think he put a fair case on the twin issues of improving humanity at the same time as preserving the environment and some temperature sensitive species. Tubs I understand and don't personally find the fact that they were out by 17% a bit concerning at all...in fact the troubling issue to me is that they were 83% correct........that we have a 17% buffer we didn't know we would have is great news....which I'm sure we will no doubt squander....and I'm equally sure others will use that fact to divert peoples view from the reality. Im equally sure that my request for someone to identify a national science body in the world ANYWHERE that claims GW is all BS has gone through to the keeper...As Octave laughingly suggests the entire world science body are all in cahoots with this global fraud.......Its clear as can be and sure don't need any damn evidence! Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skeptic36 Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 Im equally sure that my request for someone to identify a national science body in the world ANYWHERE that claims GW is all BS has gone through to the keeper...As Octave laughingly suggests the entire world science body are all in cahoots with this global fraud.......Its clear as can be and sure don't need any damn evidence! Andy Andy, Whether or not the science is correct, if you were the head of an organisation, earning a large sum of money, and you thought there was a bit of evidence that it may not be correct, are you going to risk the credibility of your organisation and therefore your own job by saying it out loud, knowing full well the rest of the world is going to laugh you out of the industry because not to do so may mean their own incomes diminishing? You're all happy to talk about the way the world has been manipulated by the petro- chemical dollar, but if someone says a similar thing is happening in the science world ...... pfft impossible! Regards Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 When did we start modelling the climate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 Andy,Whether or not the science is correct, if you were the head of an organisation, earning a large sum of money, and you thought there was a bit of evidence that it may not be correct, are you going to risk the credibility of your organisation and therefore your own job by saying it out loud, knowing full well the rest of the world is going to laugh you out of the industry because not to do so may mean their own incomes diminishing? You're all happy to talk about the way the world has been manipulated by the petro- chemical dollar, but if someone says a similar thing is happening in the science world ...... pfft impossible! Regards Bill Bill your correct, its all a game of who blinks first and the winner.....well it doesn't actually matter who the winner is, just don't be the looser who blinks first.... and on a more serious note your absolutely correct about earnings....modern company's don't look forward 30 to 50 years in the future, shareholders demand returns now......As you say a CEO has no capacity to change and no real motivation to.....It really is something that can only be imposed by Government who have a remit and an obligation to look forward longer than next election......unfortunately our political systems in the western world aren't fine tuned to make that as important as it should be and in my opinion are become more short sighted every term.....and yet superannuation, changing the age of retirement etc are all examples of forward looking, as was the carbon tax......I personally didn't like what it did to my family budget.....but was prepared to accept it as a necessary part of forward looking. I agree that the in all likelihood there is scientific fraud....I'm equally convinced that it wont be non scientists who find it....but rather peer scientists, who have always found scientific fraud when it occurs... After all the rest of us, vocal and blustery posts notwithstanding, really haven't the knowledge to investigate or argue. If Peer scientists are still outing scientific fraud where it occurs today how on the one hand can it be working (as I claim) and yet a global conspiracy on the other hand....Evidence suggests that its still working there are still examples every month globally of scientists identifying/claiming other scientists have manipulated something in a journal article....... That this occurs is IMHO evidence that they are self regulating a damn side better than we are...for example.... Another ABC document that's worth a read http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-30/lewis-theres-still-heat-in-global-warming/5778728 Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted October 14, 2014 Share Posted October 14, 2014 Bill its ok, the basic battle here is between society, as a whole, working through government scientific organisations and big carbon producing merchants rallying the idiots by encouraging idiot arguments. You can stand proudly with the idiots and say "I told you so, I TOLD YOU SO, good day Sir", every time you see some flaw in the modelling. The modelling can be fixed but the problem remains, science can adapt. Idiot arguments remain idiot arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 YOU can measure the CO2 in the atmosphere which is rising, and the acidity of the world's oceans also.(rising due to absorbing CO2 and it is now at a level where sea life with hard shells is threatened) So we have a problem with the oceans and the greenhouse gas effect is well understood. Growing plants absorb CO2 but they are diminishing rapidly, as we clear forests, as desert areas increase.. A lot of people want to put profit ahead of the planet's health. Many of those people fund and lobby governments. Many corporates are more powerful than governments. Murdoch press has always been inclined to want to start wars and deny climate change. Is OUR government unduly shaped by Murdoch. If not it's not for want of trying. He effectively owns the lot. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 If you are asserting scientific fraud you probably ought to supply rational evidence. I have made my position clear and it's you, on more than one occasion, who has invented claims made by me while FT just goes on calling me names. But what FT doesn't realise is that he supports my case by example, the whole world is wrapped up in GW and anyone who dares to go against the tide is crucified. I understand and don't personally find the fact that they were out by 17% a bit concerning at all...in fact the troubling issue to me is that they were 83% correct....... So they are maybe 83% correct about their "maybe". Had it been only 17% correct you would still be sabre rattling. Another ABC document that's worth a read It's worth a read why? Because it supports your position, simple. If anyone posts anything that doesn't support the GW position, it's "Looney" time apparently. In one hand you say none of us are experts on GW, but you're quite happy to show a report based on votes of people who you openly admit don't know shite. Could it be that in the 7000 years since god created the universe Yeah, well given a choice between believing in someone's God and GW (as currently presented) .... hmmm, I'll take 'Yes, Pamela Anderson will be in my bed one day'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 Bex .... no lets just forget it... this is an aviation forum so lets talk aviation because despite my views I perhaps completely hypocritically still enjoy a good fly around......It would seem that there is little chance in the near term of anything being done at government level to change that ( at least from a GW perspective) CASA will of course continue to dabble and spend members money on things we cant afford at present.....but really...when wasn't that the case...... Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 Bex never underestimate the power of prayer, I am sure Pamela has had worse than you. This whole climate science study really is only occurring with any real value since the very late 1990s when PCs became cheap enough to be able to build supercomputers from bundles of PCs. You expect a fairly fast development of theories and analysis. The guy I know who works on it in toowoomba build low end server farms from generic PCs the blue and orange in the graph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 Bex never underestimate the power of prayer, I presume you have never been through the Royal Children's Hospital, nice thing your God, quite the sense of humour. I am sure Pamela has had worse than you. I would give her the best 2 minutes of my life. As for the rest, once again I have little idea what you are posting about, so I want to take a moment and applaud you for your consistency Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 Bex go with your gut, on both matters Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmccarthy Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 New ABC Doco on Catalyst. I think it is tonight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 bex the laughing buddha is never wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 It infers it's a fake FT.......not the best example to give. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 or have you been deceived? my sources are never wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 It's clear from the content of this thread that its title is incorrect; Australia hasn't perfected solar power and can't produce an economically viable alternative source to coal. QED Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skeptic36 Posted October 16, 2014 Share Posted October 16, 2014 Australia hasn't perfected solar power and can't produce an economically viable alternative source to coal.QED Not can't, we just don't want to . It's there running down every river and creek in the country. Really it's solar power in a different form that is capable of producing base load power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now