# Global warming theory . . . Couldn't agree more



## dreamkiller (Jul 17, 2011)




----------



## Australis (Jul 17, 2011)

Some people don't understand science, that bloke is one.


----------



## Klaery (Jul 17, 2011)

Have to agree with Astralis. Arrogance and certainty surpassed only by his ignorance.


----------



## Crystal..Discus (Jul 17, 2011)

What is this "science" and WHY IS IT MAKING ME LEARN THINGS?! Someone think of the children!!


----------



## Fuscus (Jul 17, 2011)

> The difference between weather and climate is a measure of time. Weather is what conditions of the atmosphere are over a short period of time, and climate is how the atmosphere "behaves" over relatively long periods of time.
> ...
> An easy way to remember the difference is that climate is what you expect, like a very hot summer, and weather is what you get, like a hot day with pop-up thunderstorms.


from NASA - What's the Difference Between Weather and Climate?


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Jul 17, 2011)

Seems to me a classic example of can’t see the forest for the trees. 

Climate change isn’t about predicting the daily weather pattern. It is about looking at the average global temperatures – a huge task in itself. I mean, how the hell do you work out an average temperature for the entire world? This is something the sceptics seize upon. 

What climate scientists look at are the physical and biological aspects of our world that are temperature dependent. Things like the size of the polar ice caps and the amount of oxygen dissolved in Arctic and Antarctic waters. They also measure those factors which are known to affect the rate of heat loss from the planet such as the amount of C0[SUB]2[/SUB] in the lower levels of the atmosphere.

Doing it this way they are able to use pre-historic indicators of average global temperatures. In other words, they don’t need some pre-Neanderthal running around with a super-sensitive digit, sticking it up around the globe and recording the results in hieroglyphic like symbols to be unravelled by some highly gifted anthropologist. 

Bottom line? It is about looking at the big picture.

Blue


----------



## Renenet (Jul 18, 2011)

Michael O'Leary, I used to accept climate change science but your eloquent, colorfully punctuated argument has changed my mind...


----------



## Snakewoman (Jul 18, 2011)

I hope this guy just sent this into the paper as a joke to stir the pot, if he's serious I'll be concerned...


----------



## benjamind2010 (Jul 18, 2011)

That is PURE GOLD!
I swear I laughed so hard I thought I was going to run out of breath.
I agree 100%
This is just a con by the big financial or the big green or some other big money-grubbing agenda.
Not that I'd ever dismiss green solutions because solar energy reduces your electricity/gas bill and that is a good thing, but this stupidity about climate change needs to be knocked on the head, it's just a bunch of voodoo science.


----------



## Flaviruthless (Jul 18, 2011)

benjamind2010 said:


> That is PURE GOLD!
> I swear I laughed so hard I thought I was going to run out of breath.
> I agree 100%
> This is just a con by the big financial or the big green or some other big money-grubbing agenda.
> Not that I'd ever dismiss green solutions because solar energy reduces your electricity/gas bill and that is a good thing, but this stupidity about climate change needs to be knocked on the head, it's just a bunch of voodoo science.



Hahahahaha, you're funny. Do you know anything about climate change other than what the media touts? 

Respect the Science | Get the facts


----------



## mmafan555 (Jul 20, 2011)

benjamind2010 said:


> That is PURE GOLD!
> I swear I laughed so hard I thought I was going to run out of breath.
> I agree 100%
> This is just a con by the big financial or the big green or some other big money-grubbing agenda.
> Not that I'd ever dismiss green solutions because solar energy reduces your electricity/gas bill and that is a good thing, but this stupidity about climate change needs to be knocked on the head, it's just a bunch of voodoo science.




While it probably isn't 100 percent accurate at least their is a decent chance that man caused global warming is true...


----------



## LullabyLizard (Jul 20, 2011)

Wow. I can't believe that people still believe it's fake. Ha ha ha!


----------



## mmafan555 (Jul 20, 2011)

LullabyLizard said:


> Wow. I can't believe that people still believe it's fake. Ha ha ha!



Wow lol I think you overestimate human intelligence alot..Or maybe you have just lived your life surrounded with mostly intelligent and well informed people? Well if that's the case you should come to Alabama or Texas and trust me you won't overestimate human intelligence ever again after living in those states


----------



## Mayo (Jul 20, 2011)

mmafan555 said:


> While it probably isn't 100 percent accurate at least their is a decent chance that man caused global warming is true...Unlike humanities favorite comic book the bible and religion in general.



The theory is not that we created global warming, it is that we are speeding it up.


----------



## Snake_Whisperer (Jul 20, 2011)

benjamind2010 said:


> That is PURE GOLD!
> I swear I laughed so hard I thought I was going to run out of breath.
> I agree 100%
> This is just a con by the big financial or the big green or some other big money-grubbing agenda.
> Not that I'd ever dismiss green solutions because solar energy reduces your electricity/gas bill and that is a good thing, but this stupidity about climate change needs to be knocked on the head, it's just a bunch of voodoo science.



Not far off the mark mate. Eugenics and electroconvulsive therapy were once also touted as valid science. Hell, once upon a time the sun orbited the earth.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Jul 20, 2011)

We should bear in mind that climate change isn't something new. We even have animated feature films about the ice ages, just to remind us. And it does have a huge effect on the distributions of the worlds various flora and fauna.

What is critical about what is happening at the moment is the *rate* at which it is occurring. It is happening much more rapidly than as a result of natural processes. There is a huge question of whether natural ecosystems will be able to change quickly enough to keep pace and avoid massive decimations and extinctions. 

Of course, the other side of the coin is how it will affect human agriculture? This isn’t something than can be readily moved or altered for any number of reasons. Particular land use comes with huge investment in equipment and infra-structure to support it. The land is individually owned in individual allotments, which does not readily allow changes from intensive farming to broad acre farming, if the need arises…

The main offender is carbon dioxide. In the last 70 years it has increase from 310 ppm to 390 ppm or 0.039% by volume. Not a lot, you would have to say, but the effect on the rate at which heat can escape from the earth back through the atmosphere is significant slowed down. If it keeps increasing at that rate then a century or two down the track earth’s temperatures could rise by an average of 5[SUP]o[/SUP]C to 10[SUP]o[/SUP]C resulting in an increase in sea level of 20m to 35m. Scary stuff!

Blue


----------



## Flaviruthless (Jul 20, 2011)

As always Blue, well said


----------



## camspeed (Jul 20, 2011)

Global warming is the biggest scam we will ever see in our lifetime.


----------



## Renenet (Jul 20, 2011)

camspeed said:


> Global warming is the biggest scam we will ever see in our lifetime.



What is your evidence for this?


----------



## Jungletrans (Jul 21, 2011)

People keep saying that the Planet is in trouble , its not , we are . The Planet will still be here long after our greed and arrogance have wiped us from the face of the Earth .


----------



## slim6y (Jul 21, 2011)

Sinks and sources...

Peta grams...

Beyond the average person's ability to understand.... Especially those who are in denial (which seems to be clearly followed by anger).

It's all been said here already...


----------



## LullabyLizard (Jul 21, 2011)

camspeed said:


> Global warming is the biggest scam we will ever see in our lifetime.



Are you stupid?? :lol:


----------



## swan91 (Jul 21, 2011)

im an inquisitive mind and through immense study i have come to a conclusion i am happy with.. im happy to help the earth, less pollution/destruction more recycling etc.. but when politics is introduced it causes all sorts of problems.. ethical and economical..
to those people that think that everyone who believes that man has accelerated the rate of global warming, just because that is what they were taught in school/their whole life, ie. due to the 'greenhouse' effect.. you are the most ignorant of all.. question what has been 'taught' to you.. yes teachers will hate you, but at least you can understand 'WHY' these things are the way they are, not as a simple explanation from a teacher like 'thats just the way it is'... also ponder this.. the biggest greenhouse gas IS NOT CO2, its humble old H20..


----------



## Klaery (Jul 21, 2011)

Haha myself and I imagine Slim6y would have to disagree with what you say about grumpy teachers. As science teachers it is our job to get students asking questions. That is how science works. 

And yes you are correct water vapour is the main gas responsible for the greenhouse effect. Coming in at number 2 though is CO2 and I think we can agree that man has definately played a part in CO2 increases.


----------



## pythrulz (Jul 21, 2011)

Afreind sent me that same quote a couple of weeks ago how true


----------



## Virides (Jul 21, 2011)

AMS05 said:


> the biggest greenhouse gas IS NOT CO2, its humble old H20..



H20 is in the air regardless of the effect of other gases. C02, C0, CFCs, etc are the contributing gases which act as a significant variable in the mix. Most gases in the atmosphere contribute their part, but these 3 are the main factors.

Venus is an extreme example of the current effect the earth is experiencing. The gases within its atmosphere reflect some heat and light and trap some heat and light. It is the trapped heat and light (all forms of energy) that increase temperatures. This is why venus has a surface temperature of 400deg C (Also it is closer to the sun). But this is on the extreme end. Even if the earth experiences 10% of this, it is still significant.


----------



## swan91 (Jul 21, 2011)

haha.. well ive had PLENTY of EVIL chemistry teachers... they HATED me asking questions.. and one teacher refused to answer me when i had my hand up.. and she would roll her eyes.. and i wasnt an evil child.. i just had questions that they obviouslt didnt have answers to.. and couldnt be bothered finding out..


----------



## slim6y (Jul 21, 2011)

I'm sorry AMS05 - but (being a teacher) I LOVE to be questioned... And considering I am in the sciences, I always think that it shows a deeper understanding if appropriate questions are asked. 

In fact, I disprove greatly of quiet classes that take mindless garbage sent to them from the teachers...

As far as H2O and CO2 go - without them (especially H2O) yes, the earth would be a much colder average temperature than the 15'C it currently exhibits.

Virides - Woman are from Venus... Woman talk too much... Talking exhales CO2... 

And finally... 

Our planet... Mother Earth... Gaia... James Lovelock... He's an interesting being worth reading about.


----------



## camspeed (Jul 21, 2011)

LullabyLizard said:


> Are you stupid?? :lol:


 
No, but obviously you are if you believe this rubbish.


----------



## mmafan555 (Jul 21, 2011)

camspeed said:


> Organized religion is the biggest scam we will ever see in our lifetime.



Fixed it for you.



Renenet said:


> What is your evidence for this?



Fox News and the Koch brothers..Oh and maybe some infomercial paid for by Exxon Mobil 



Jungletrans said:


> People keep saying that the Planet is in trouble , its not , we are . The Planet will still be here long after our greed and arrogance have wiped us from the face of the Earth .




Yeah that is true..The planet will never be destroyed...We and most other large animals will be through.. Once we are gone another species( 1 or many) will fill the void and the cycle will continue. Humans have such an over-inflated view on how important we are..One of the reasons religion was created was to boast human ego and sense of importance 

"We are the children of God..."God will watch over blah blah blah" and my all time favorite "Animals were created by God for our enjoyment" Lol disease carrying Mosquitoes, Tsetse Flies, Sandflies, Ticks, Assassin Bugs etc disagree...Not to mention Parasites, Viruses, infectious Amoebas and harmful Bacteria etc etc...Yep "God" surely must have created all these wonderful things for our enjoyment 


That being said while I do believe in humans contribution greatly to climate change...As the late great Steve Irwin said...Habitat destruction is still the biggest threat to non human living organisms....not climate change.


----------



## fugawi (Jul 21, 2011)

I don't see what all the fuss is about, global warming, rise in carbon levels, rise in water levels......Blah, blah, blah. Gillard is introducing a carbon tax.........That'll fix it. Mother Earth is sighing in relief already. We shouldn't have to lift a finger to help.


----------



## D3pro (Jul 21, 2011)

Can't we just build a global size air-conditioner?  :lol:


----------



## slim6y (Jul 21, 2011)

D3pro said:


> Can't we just build a global size air-conditioner?  :lol:



And vent the waste air to outerspace...

I think we just solved the problem!!!


----------



## Flaviruthless (Jul 21, 2011)

D3pro said:


> Can't we just build a global size air-conditioner?  :lol:



We'll just drop increasingly large blocks of ice into the oceans


----------



## Renenet (Jul 22, 2011)

camspeed said:


> No, but obviously you are if you believe this rubbish.



Camspeed, you still haven't answered my question. What's your evidence that climate change is a scam and a load of rubbish? You must have some reason for thinking this. 

Come on, convince me. Change my mind.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Jul 22, 2011)

Renet,

Such a statement is only made to elicit to elicit a reactive and emotional response. These sorts of comments are made by opportunistic individuals who parasitise discussions where those engaged feel strongly about the subject matter. It would appear that these particular individuals derive some measure of deviant gratification from successfully riling the emotions of others. The more outrageous the statement, the more likely they are to succeed in getting their jollies.

Rest assured Renet that you will not receive a reply of any substance, if at all. Had they anything worthwhile to contribute to the discussion then they would have already done so. I am pleased to see your measured response for I belief that it is, as such, effective in thwarting their game plan. Most commendable!

Blue


----------



## slim6y (Jul 22, 2011)

Some years ago, on this very site, someone put a youtube video which simplifies the whole - 'should we do something' scenario.

To cut a 9 minute video short... ( [video=youtube;zORv8wwiadQ]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zORv8wwiadQ[/video] )

It is NOT the most terrifying video you'll see (I think that Friday song beats it quite easily).

It is 'simplified' (perhaps overly) but it should at least get you thinking.

Even reading articles about the ocean not being able to absorb as much CO2 as before - so many of these things just continue to advocate a requirement for us to re-think our positions here on earth!


----------



## camspeed (Jul 22, 2011)

Arguing on forums is pointless. I don't feel the need to convince you to change your mind, I was merely stating my opinion, and to which you decide to insult my intelligence by calling me stupid for holding that opinion.

If it would make any difference then maybe I would be bothered telling you why I think it is a crock of ****, but the fact is that we're controlled by the government and they will do whatever the hell they want regardless. If you choose to believe whatever is spoon fed to you then by all means go ahead.


----------



## moosenoose (Jul 22, 2011)

:lol: Here we go again.

I think this video speaks volumes: ‪Why The Global Warming Agenda Is Wrong‬&rlm; - YouTube

Global warming, in my humble opinion, is happening whether we're a part of it, or not. The sun isn't going to shine forever, like the Earth isn't going to last forever. People need to get their heads around the fact that "Nothing lasts forever". We're not as influential as we like to believe we are. Certainly not on the scale that we control the planets warmth. That's quite laughable.


----------



## shea92 (Jul 22, 2011)

I don't see what qualifies people like this to argue against the scientific community. I only have three words for them, "living in denial."Simple put, climate change is occurring due to a disruption in the carbon cycle from burning fossil fuels (CO2 being the bi-product). The repercussions of this offset in the carbon cycle is that the planet is slowly warming. Deal with it humanity. It happening, like it or not.


----------



## moosenoose (Jul 22, 2011)

So buy paying more to pollute you'll actually feel better about it? :lol: Or it gives you an excuse to continue driving your car, or flying in a plane or continue on your merry way? Either way it does nothing. Biggest brainwashing exercise by governments the world has ever seen! Who said dorks were harmless? :lol: They have the world by the proverbials!


----------



## D3pro (Jul 22, 2011)

So.... the carbon tax is just another excuse from the government to stick their hands in our pockets? How shockingly unsurprising.... They better send jobless people another bonus for sitting on their asses


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Jul 22, 2011)

camspeed said:


> Arguing on forums is pointless. I don't feel the need to convince you to change your mind.....


If either of these two statements is true, then please explain why the hell you bothered posting anything in the first place.



camspeed said:


> ….I was merely stating my opinion, and to which you decide to insult my intelligence by calling me stupid for holding that opinion.


You are entitled to your opinion. However to express that opinion in terms of others being misled (scammed) is to belittle the physical and intellectual effort that so many put into making an informed decision on the matter. So its OK for you to belittle the intellects of others, without so much as a rational notion or fact to support your position or refute that of others, but if someone questions your intellect in making the opposite decision, then they are insulting you? Interesting perspective…. You don’t feel it might be a little lop-sided perhaps?



camspeed said:


> ….If it would make any difference then maybe I would be bothered telling you why I think it is a crock of ****, but the fact is that we're controlled by the government and they will do whatever the hell they want regardless. If you choose to believe whatever is spoon fed to you then by all means go ahead.


You are correct in one respect. Given the weight of evidence for, from a vast array of respected academic researchers, anything you have to say is unlikely to sway those who have made an informed decision. However, if it is a fair and logical argument, rather than just another nebulous and nefarious conspiracy theory, it would certainly change the current view that many might have of you.
As for “being controlled by the government”… the democratic process and parliamentary representation may be far from perfect but I don’t see that it results in us being hapless and impotent.
Sadly you return to belittling people’s intellects again with the “whatever is spoon fed to you”. Oh! But that’s not an insult, is it? It is not an argument either. For future reference you may wish to take on board that belittling your opposition does nothing to add voracity to your case but it does rob you of credence.

Blue


----------



## moosenoose (Jul 22, 2011)

I love people with solar power getting rebates from people who use coal power :lol: That's the best! Can't wait to use my new wind farm - it's hooked up to a red head with a big mouth with lots & lots of Co2 flying out of it


----------



## Snowman (Jul 22, 2011)

I'm still not convinced it's not part of a cycle. We can't expect man to live forever... nothing else on this world has...


----------



## moosenoose (Jul 22, 2011)

The Greens and Labor believe ice doesn't melt :lol: Someone, namely man, has left the freezer door open and we must be punished


----------



## Klaery (Jul 22, 2011)

Snowman said:


> I'm still not convinced it's not part of a cycle. We can't expect man to live forever... nothing else on this world has...



There is plenty of evidence showing it IS part of a cycle. That is not the argument here. The argument is that human activity has/is speeding up the process.


----------



## Foxthor (Jul 22, 2011)

Something i received this morning in an email.. Not saying it is true or not, but food for thought.

I know it is "brain numbing "stuff by a Physic's scientist but at least it
gives perspective to the whole premise of "carbon emissions" and the
preposterous assumption we need a TAX to solve the perceived problem.




The first thing to note is that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and
plays a role in regulating planetary temperature over geological time. The
second thing to note is that the gas is a very ineffective greenhouse gas;
it is present in trace quantities and is overwhelmed by water vapour. Even
the IPCC, a body set up with the express mission of proving the carbon
dioxide hypothesis, acknowledges that the gas cannot cause global warming
without a feedback loop whereby increased heat increases water evaporation,
which in turn increases temperature.


As it is hottest at the equator, the early proponents of AGW said that the
proof of their assertions would be shown by the existence of a 'hot spot' in
the troposphere at the equator. Imagine a doughnut of hot and moist air
stretching right around the earth.


Two decades of diligent searching have failed to find the proof. The
explanation is pretty simple: there is no extra heat (and in any case it
just rains once enough moisture gets into the air).


Carbon dioxide is selective about which wavelengths of infra-red radiation
(which has been re-radiated from earth) it absorbs. It absorbs only a narrow
segment (in two parts, I seem to recall), with most of the IR energy
absorbed by water vapour. Further, it transfers the energy largely by
kinetic means: it has to knock up against another molecule, of nitrogen or
oxygen, to transfer thermal energy (this is probably not 100% true, there is
likely to be a very small radiative component but transfer is almost
entirely kinetic).


You should now do a thought experiment: visualise the physical issues
associated with kinetic energy transfer when the ratio is 4:10,000. There is
no escaping the data here. Once a molecule of the rare gas has been
energised, it has to hit something to transfer the energy, after which it
can absorb some more. Think of four black billiard balls in a jiggling box
with 9996 red ones. How would they go, transferring heat kinetically?


Do another thought experiment: visualise a narrow and vertical tube of air,
at an instant which lines up a single molecule at a time from the surface
all the way to space, a sort of vertical string of beads. There is a large
number of such tubes, and visualise a 'bolt' of re-radiated IR heading
upwards in each one. If it is lucky enough to strike a molecule of carbon
dioxide, some of it will be absorbed, but only in the right wavelength
portion. If it is lucky enough to strike another one, there will be very
little absorption because the energy which makes carbon dioxide resonate has
already been used up in our infinitesimally small tube. Visualise the whole
atmosphere made up of these tubes (you can ignore spherical trigonometry
which actually demands elongated tetrahedrons, as that does not affect the
validity of the thought experiment), and on average every 2500 molecules in
the bead you could encounter carbon dioxide. You (the 'bolt') are much more
likely to encounter water, or indeed just nitrogen or oxygen and therefore
escape to space.


This is the reason why increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide has a
diminishing return. It is just physics, it works that way, no escape - the
absorptive efficiency of carbon dioxide attenuates logarithmically in
proportion to its concentration. This is the reason why the water vapour
feedback mechanism had to be evoked to make climate computer modelling
produce the desired answers, and its absence demolishes the carbon dioxide
hypothesis.


How the world got itself into AGW hysterics, despite the physics, is another
subject entirely. I would be happy to explain that.


----------



## Snowman (Jul 22, 2011)

danielk said:


> There is plenty of evidence showing it IS part of a cycle. That is not the argument here. The argument is that human activity has/is speeding up the process.


 Yep. And can you stop it? I really doubt it, unless the world population is greatly reduced.... We look for cures to flu strains and disease to in fact achieve the exact opposite. Save the cheer leader, kill the world


----------



## slim6y (Jul 22, 2011)

It is true snowman - we need to reduce population - the irony is that the world wouldn't support our current population if it wasn't for oil.


----------



## fugawi (Jul 22, 2011)

On top of what Foxthor just posted there is the "Highly accurate" estimates of past temperatures and weather conditions. You will note the word "Estimates". The further back in time you go the less accurate the results. We don't have any scientists travelling back in time to take highly accurate, digital thermometer readings at certain dates and in certain places and tracking these readings throughout history. These scientists also didn't use their time machine to travel into the future to take readings there either. Core samples, rock strata, carbon dating etc all have a reasonably wide range of accuracy of what they contain and the dates. Even within the last 30yrs or so the accuracy of thermometers has improved massively from alcohol and mercury to computerised digital thermometers. Even 100yrs ago they were not taking highly accurate temperature readings in every country all across the globe. 

So let us now have a look at the science involved with Global warming and Carbon levels, and the fact that these same scientists are using these sketchy readings to try to "PREDICT THE FUTURE". They may be more accurate by wetting their finger and sticking it out the window, using crystal balls or getting a Tarot reading.

I may be a sceptic but I'd prefer to be a sceptic than a gullible fool.


----------



## waruikazi (Jul 22, 2011)

Serious question then.

You are a self identified sceptic. What is all the data indicating? And why is it indicating what you believe it to be?



fugawi said:


> On top of what Foxthor just posted there is the "Highly accurate" estimates of past temperatures and weather conditions. You will note the word "Estimates". The further back in time you go the less accurate the results. We don't have any scientists travelling back in time to take highly accurate, digital thermometer readings at certain dates and in certain places and tracking these readings throughout history. These scientists also didn't use their time machine to travel into the future to take readings there either. Core samples, rock strata, carbon dating etc all have a reasonably wide range of accuracy of what they contain and the dates. Even within the last 30yrs or so the accuracy of thermometers has improved massively from alcohol and mercury to computerised digital thermometers. Even 100yrs ago they were not taking highly accurate temperature readings in every country all across the globe.
> 
> So let us now have a look at the science involved with Global warming and Carbon levels, and the fact that these same scientists are using these sketchy readings to try to "PREDICT THE FUTURE". They may be more accurate by wetting their finger and sticking it out the window, using crystal balls or getting a Tarot reading.
> 
> I may be a sceptic but I'd prefer to be a sceptic than a gullible fool.


----------



## fugawi (Jul 22, 2011)

All I'm trying to show is the possible inaccuracies involved in trying to ascertain scientific readings from the past and then using the + or - % results to "Predict the future". This possible future is based on "Estimates" from the past and assumes that in a static future timeline, if nothing changes, this could possibly, maybe, could be an approximation of the result.........kind of.

On these results we are running around, acting like South Park characters yelling "LOOK OUT, GLOBAL WARMING IS COMING......RUN".


----------



## waruikazi (Jul 22, 2011)

I accept that their will be inaccuracies in the data that is available. This is ineveitable, nothing is perfect.

But i am asking what the innaccuracies mean. Do they mean that anthropic global warming is not happening? Or does it mean the predictions of the rate that anthropic global warming is effecting the globe are not as accurate as they could be?



fugawi said:


> All I'm trying to show is the possible inaccuracies involved in trying to ascertain scientific readings from the past and then using the + or - % results to "Predict the future". This possible future is based on "Estimates" from the past and assumes that in a static future timeline, if nothing changes, this could possibly, maybe, could be an approximation of the result.........kind of.
> 
> On these results we are running around, acting like South Park characters yelling "LOOK OUT, GLOBAL WARMING IS COMING......RUN".


----------



## Sir_Hiss (Jul 22, 2011)

The reality is that there is valid scientific evidence for both sides of the debate. No one knows for sure what is happening or why. People should remember that and get off their high horses and realise the evidence doesn't exist on either side. Just because we believe something enough and try to ram it down other people's throats doesn't make it true.


----------



## fugawi (Jul 22, 2011)

Don't get me wrong, I do believe that the earth is warming naturally since the last ice age and that our pollution is probably increasing that rate but I also don't think that some scientists crystal ball predictions should be sending the world into a spin with increased taxes and have everyone running around like headless chooks saying "AAAAH, We've gotta fix global warming right now or we will all die......".


----------



## junglepython2 (Jul 22, 2011)

slim6y said:


> It is true snowman - we need to reduce population - the irony is that the world wouldn't support our current population if it wasn't for oil.



Hit the nail on the head there Slim6y!

The only way to live sustainably without overtly affecting the environment is to drastically reduce the population. Which will happen eventually, either by choice or more likely catastrophe.

I find it hard to stomach a "carbon tax" to save the planet, when most governments are hell bent on increasing the population to generate more taxes and cover the cost of an ageing population.


----------



## camspeed (Jul 22, 2011)

Bluetongue1 said:


> If either of these two statements is true, then please explain why the hell you bothered posting anything in the first place.
> 
> You are entitled to your opinion. However to express that opinion in terms of others being misled (scammed) is to belittle the physical and intellectual effort that so many put into making an informed decision on the matter. So its OK for you to belittle the intellects of others, without so much as a rational notion or fact to support your position or refute that of others, but if someone questions your intellect in making the opposite decision, then they are insulting you? Interesting perspective…. You don’t feel it might be a little lop-sided perhaps?
> 
> ...


 
Mate you really need to put the thesaurus away. Who talks like that seriously?

You want evidence, step outside. Coldest temperatures on record in decades over the past few months. This is why the term was sneakily changed from 'global warming' to 'climate change' by the government along the line somewhere. It's not a conspiracy theory, I'm not a tin foil hat wearing fruit loop, it's just plain obvious that the whole carbon tax is just about the money, with little to do with helping the environment. If it was a serious environmental issue then we would stop exporting coal, but hang on that's also where the government gets a ****load of money. On another topic, why doesn't the government ban the sale of cigarettes? Hmm, I wonder why.


----------



## Klaery (Jul 22, 2011)

camspeed said:


> *You want evidence, step outside. Coldest temperatures on record in decades over the past few months.* This is why the term was sneakily changed from 'global warming' to 'climate change' by the government along the line somewhere.



That there is your problem. Not exactly good science is it. 



camspeed said:


> It's not a conspiracy theory, I'm not a tin foil hat wearing fruit loop, it's just plain obvious that the whole carbon tax is just about the money, with little to do with helping the environment. If it was a serious environmental issue then we would stop exporting coal, but hang on that's also where the government gets a ****load of money. On another topic, why doesn't the government ban the sale of cigarettes? Hmm, I wonder why.



I agree that the carbon tax is a bit silly but again not science.


----------



## Snowman (Jul 22, 2011)

camspeed said:


> Mate you really need to put the thesaurus away. Who talks like that seriously?
> 
> You want evidence, step outside. Coldest temperatures on record in decades over the past few months. This is why the term was sneakily changed from 'global warming' to 'climate change' by the government along the line somewhere. It's not a conspiracy theory, I'm not a tin foil hat wearing fruit loop, it's just plain obvious that the whole carbon tax is just about the money, with little to do with helping the environment. If it was a serious environmental issue then we would stop exporting coal, but hang on that's also where the government gets a ****load of money. On another topic, why doesn't the government ban the sale of cigarettes? Hmm, I wonder why.



I don't think Bluetongue had any uncommon words in his response. However I can tell you that I know Bluetongue and he does indeed have a very extensive vocabulary. Comes from being a lecturer no doubt.


----------



## Wally (Jul 22, 2011)

I find Blues discourse rather refreshing to be frank.


----------



## camspeed (Jul 22, 2011)

Snowman said:


> I don't think Bluetongue had any uncommon words in his response. However I can tell you that I know Bluetongue and he does indeed have a very extensive vocabulary. Comes from being a lecturer no doubt.


 
I'm all for being educated but I think he could have been more succinct and felt he was just using big words in an attempt to sound clever, which is just distracting from the point he was making.


----------



## Renenet (Jul 22, 2011)

camspeed said:


> Arguing on forums is pointless. I don't feel the need to convince you to change your mind, I was merely stating my opinion, and to which you decide to insult my intelligence by calling me stupid for holding that opinion.



Blue has already responded most eloquently to this so I won't elaborate much further. I'll only say that if you're going to put your opinion out there, on a public forum, you have to expect people are going to "argue" with you. I asked my question because I am genuinely interested in why you hold the opinion you expressed.

For the record another poster called you stupid; I did not. I don't like to conduct myself that way in debates and don't condone it in others, even if they agree with me. I'd hope we can conduct ourselves a little better than they do in parliament.


----------



## Bluetongue1 (Jul 23, 2011)

camspeed said:


> Mate you really need to put the thesaurus away. Who talks like that seriously?


 
Thanks Snowman.

Camspeed ,

I talk like that. 

Please accept my apology if you found it off-putting. I accept that good communication is about getting the message across, which I failed to do. I shall ensure I use plainer English which shall hopefully solve this issue. OK?

Glad to see you clarified your comments related to the Government. Occasionally governments actually do bite the bullet and do the right thing. The Hawk government banning further uranium mining is just such an example. Shame it didn’t last (thanks to ‘Little Johnny Howard’).

I am also sceptical of the Carbon Tax. If they are serious it *all* should go to reafforestation - planting trees where they used to be but have been cut down; regenerating ecologically degraded areas - doing what is necessary to re-establish plants native to the area so as to provide places for the animals native to the area to live and interact as they would have before European settlement; and the like.

I am also pleased to see that I was wrong with my original assessment of your first post. Glad to see you now contributing something.

Blue

Apologies that this so late. I have been distracted of late…



AMS05 said:


> …. to those people that think that everyone who believes that man has accelerated the rate of global warming, just because that is what they were taught in school/their whole life, ie. due to the 'greenhouse' effect.. you are the most ignorant of all.. question what has been 'taught' to you..
> ... also ponder this.. the biggest greenhouse gas IS NOT CO[SUB]2[/SUB], its humble old H[SUB]2[/SUB]0..


 You appear to have a problem with teachers or teaching methodology. Do you have a problem with the greenhouse effect as well?

Teachers train to understand how kids learn and when they are ready for what. When they come into high school, kids are at Piaget’s concrete phase and a majority will be at the abstract phase by the time they finish schooling. So early science teaching involves a lot of “facts” that students are asked to accept. These provide a basis for concept development in the future. Usually there will be an array of “cook book” experiments or demonstrations to illustrate and reinforce what is being taught as well as discussion of common phenomena that are explained by these. 

At the same time students also learn about the methodology of science through having to design investigations to answer simple questions. Part of this exercise will be to critically evaluate their design. Over time, the complexity and sophistication of these investigations and their corresponding analyses, increases. This problem based learning is one way in which critical thinking skills are encouraged. In senior courses, exercises involving source materials are incorporated allow much greater depth of research and analysis and further developing critical thinking skills. The limitations here are often due to the amount of content teachers are expected to get through and the reality of content based examinations as a measure of accountability.
​ I need to emphasis here that the phrase “because the teacher told me” should carry some weight. Secondary teachers will have spent several years studying at university level about the things they teach in a classroom. There are god and bad in all professions and you can be unlucky. However, those teachers who do not measure up tend to cope it from all their classes (let alone admin) and, as generalisation, don’t last too long in the system. 

Teachers didn’t invent the greenhouse effect. It came from people who were working in all sorts of specialised fields within the broader categories of biology, chemistry, geography, geology, geophysics and physics. These days the CSIRO even has a category called “climate scientist” – usually a multi-disciplinary area rather than a simple offshoot of meteorology. The teacher and the textbooks are simply a conduit for this information.

You do not need an enquiring mind to say “Why?”, just a set of active vocal cords. Questions should be purposeful and appropriate. Asking, for example, why is a computer able to word process? This is not answerable without an extensive understanding of electronics, binary and memory, computer compilers and programming. Yet it is readily demonstrable. Questions should be tailored to address specific issues you perceive in the information provided, not just a general, all encompassing why or how. That means you have to have thought critically about it first.

Blue


----------

