IS This For Real!

earthbound

Sorry you just can't argue science and fact, with opinion.

They are pier reviewed scientific papers, they are not cash articles for some popular magazine and any scientist can publish, so long as their methodology and science stands up to peer review anyone can publish any science pro or con anything.

Climate science is not like the medical industry at all and they can not be compared, medical science is where real money is, things can be patented and sold for massive amounts of money. Climate scientists can't patent and sell things.

SuperVeg

It is truly mindboggling that you believe there are no financial interests in scientific results. Have you read anything I wrote about Solyndra (not the only example)
The government pays out BILLIONS of dollars based on scientific results. That is OUR money vapourising for no purpose except to line the pockets of the elite.

Do you have any science and fact on Al Gore's relationship with the World Bank and his other financial interests ? What about the science and facts behind the use of the carbon tax, the organisations that administer that and the eventual percentage that ends up as actual trees or some other overstated carbon offsets ? (please don't quote any mainstream media BS)

Otherwise lets just hope you are right mate :laughing3:

Dave Donley

OK SuperVeg you're in the Climate Change is a Hoax camp. We are all advocates for the ideas we've been infected with.

helomech

RupertofOZ wrote:

Yes, there has been climate change throughout the history of the planet....

But never has the pace of change been so great.... and the increasing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere.. and associated warming temperatures....

Coincide directly with the trend in population... and gas emmission... since the beginning of the industrial revolution....

So, I ask you... do you really believe that with an exponentially increasing human population... and the exponentially increasing levels of waste and polution that we produce.....

That the changes in the atmosphere, and climate patterns and trends... can not be attrributed to humans...

Compared to a previously virtually inihabited planet.... it beggars belief to even suggest otherwise...

Sure, you can argue as to the degree one degree either way.... but to suggest that we have not altered the atmospherics and feedback loops within the planet's ecosphere.... by the rampant environmental vandalism... and unrestrained pollution of a once pristine planet...

Just defies any logic what so ever...

How can you possible argue that a once pristine container (earth)... can not possibly be unaffected... by constantly throwing shit onto, and into the same container...

I don't believe we are helping, but I also don't believe there is enough info to make assumptions. Just look at how much crap is put in the air when one volcano goes off. Look at how much oil naturally seeps from the sea floor, and so on and so on. It is kind of like the ants in my yard, yes they are a pain, but they don't really effect much. All their data is a guess, they don't have any real data. To say the temp increased 1 degree is ridiculous. Heck measuring equipment is not that accurate throught history. They are GUESSING that there is a rise.

Oh yeah and the winter before last was one of the coldest ones we have had. Yes the one before that was warm, it is just cycles.

Heck even the scientist got tired of claiming global warming, opps global cooling, opps global warming, heck lets just call it climate change.

helomech

bythebrook wrote:

helomech wrote:

Dave Donley wrote:

Climate change is a hoax?

You really believe we are responsible for climate change, if it is even happening? Really? Then how come there where ice ages before we came along? Climate change has been happening since the earth has formed.

Using your logic, humans can't start bushfires because bushfires occurred before humans existed!

Previous climate changes were primarily due to the Milankovitch cycles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

However the Milankovitch cycles can't explain the current temperature changes.

Briefly, the concentration of CO2 has increased by more than 100ppm since the industrial revolution started. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere has an isotope ratio which indicates that the increase is due to burning of fossil fuels (ie human activity). Carbon dioxide was known more than 100 years ago to be a greenhouse gas, as it re-radiates absorbed EMR in the infra-red band.

Try this site for your specific argument:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate ... period.htm

The site also has the answers for many other questions.

Wow grat analogy, yes there where fires before. How do you explain all the climate change before now? So what are they claiming now is it still global warming, or have we switched to global cooling now? They change their minds constantly. And you can't blame the same factors for both. What causes warming, can't cause cooling. Pic a side.

Heck I thought we had a hole in the ozone, now we have to much. They don't have a clue, and you can't say for certain that the temps have increased. Heck even with today's measuring devices you can't have all of the thermometers accurate. The stuff we use is calibrated, but there is still differences between units. Then the way the numbers are taken plays a huge role in the answer. My point is that you can get any answer you want by looking for a certain answer. And I believe that this is the case, you can go out and look for things to make your point, but that is not how data should be collected to give a accurate reading.

helomech

SuperVeg wrote:

Im sure that website is the ultimate authority on unbiased science....

The truth is that it is very confusing for the average person to know if they are actually reading the facts or not. Anyone can throw around websites that show this or that here is one that references all sorts of articles that show global warming may not be all it is hyped up to be
http://www.wnho.net/global_warming.htm

In the 70s we had Global Cooling, then we had Global Warming now we just have Climate Change.
The extra taxes and govt spending on organisations, technology and administration of all things Climate Change total HUGE amounts of money. When such large amounts of money are being spent on ANYTHING you really need to question the real motivations behind it. Many private companies with strong government ties have been given lots of money to "Fight Climate Change"
The name Solyndra comes to mind... (the US dept of energy offered them over $500 million dollars, and now they are bankrupt)
This is by no means an isolated example..
Why are the "top" climate scientists who support global warming buying multimillion dollar houses on the the coast and the top climate scientists who disagree not getting paid anything ?

There are new temperature measurements from satellites that negate many of the problems associated with land based temperature measurements.

"top" scientists who speak against climate change also argue that solar radiation has a significantly larger effect than the pro climate scientists use in their models, and the models have been shown to be totally useless anyway..

I'm just asking questions... If you support Climate Change and don't ask these questions then you will never understand the issue. To truly understand any issue like this you need to thoroughly research BOTH sides. Not just fall in love with the first..

Its all too easy to let TV think for us. Always follow the money and find out who is making the big dollars, especially if the taxpayer is footing the bill.

Well said.

helomech

I think we can all agree that we need to clean up our act, but taxing something is just a way to let things slide by. If the government was serious about it, they would shut down plants that did not meet the criteria, but no they just charge them more, or make them buy credits from a company that has extra. It is just like speeding tickets. There is to much money to be made by governments to actually put a stop to things, then there would be no money coming in.

I would love to see zero pollution, but until you turn off your electricity and stop using any oil products you are just being a hypocrite to blame others.

Charlie

peace man

Attachment:

neil.jpg [ 12.17 KiB | Viewed 3315 times ]

Matthew

bythebrook

Superveg, I'm a chemical engineer. I can do energy balances (as well as lots of other things). The evidence for climate change is just a very large energy balance. The science is very convincing. And I'm talking about the evidence as a whole, not just cherry-picking a few pieces of data and trying to make them "prove" something. As for thinking the money is driving the pro-climate change industry, have you any idea how much money is given to people (eg Christopher Monckton) to muddy the waters? The fossil fuel industry would love to be able to show climate change isn't happening, but the evidence isn't showing that! There is much more money given by the fossil fuel industry to create doubt so they can continue business as usual for as long as possible.

Try reading "Merchants of Doubt" by Naomi Oreskes.

Exactly how is the population to be "curbed"? If you don't want controls on breeding, then are you expecting people to have a reduced lifespan (ie die) due to disease, famine, fires or floods? I think that was what Mantis was reacting to.

SuperVeg

We shall see, it might take 10 years but the truth will come out either way..

You might be a chemical engineer, but you are not an economist or historian. Yes I agree the "science" is convincing, there is no doubt about that. If it wasn't convincing we wouldnt be having this conversation. I too fell in love with climate change, blindly believed Al Gore's movie, Tim Flannery's book and mulitudes of other publications. I did not even consider (or know about) economics and how there is always some convenient "crisis" or "threat" to our very lives, just around the corner that also happens to demand more of our spare (or not spare) change.

I am not out to burn the earth, but I am also not out to impoverish the people needlessly.
I am simply after the truth.

To find the truth you need to personally understand both sides of these issues and it is absolutely essential to view it with a background in basic economics and history. This tells us what has happened before and how money has changed hands. The only way to truly understand this world.

Dave Donley

The powers that be right now are not the Liberal conspiracy, at the moment the real power is with monopolies. There are real parallels to the Robber Baron era. And some folks want it that way. If this were a different time then maybe we should be worrying about the Communists and Socialists, but those are not the dominant controlling power in the year 2012.

SuperVeg

Do you have any idea how the monopolies maintain their power ?
Without government intervention monopolies and cartels are inherently unstable and competition will always destroy them.
It is a form of collectivism, some kind of semi-fascist beast where you see people moving between government and very powerful positions in banking firms and other very large coporations. The root cause is not the corporations per se, but the big corrupt government that not just allows this to happen but regulates monopoly into existence.

The best example in history is that of the Federal Reserve. In 1911-12 the people demanded government do something about the "Money Trust" the powerful cartel of central bankers.
In true goverment style Senator Aldrich was given the job to "fix" the problem. Instead he and all the heads of the central banks including representatives of English banking (on which the system was based), Rockerfellers, and Morgans all met secretly on Jekyll Island and created a plan that Legislated the cartel and monopoly of the issuance of money.

The cartel itself is not so much of a problem but the monopoly of the money supply is.
If we had free market money (no legal tender laws) then inflation the hidden tax that is simply THEFT would cease to exist.
Why else are the prices of almost everything going up ?
The loss in purchasing power of your dollars has been stolen by the government (through inflation) to pay for bailouts and subsidies of ONLY the well connected corporations of the super rich.

Income tax was introduced at the same time as the Federal Reserve Act by the government to guarantee the loans it makes from the Federal Reserve (a private company).

Have a look at a graph of M3 (money supply) since 1913 and you will see how much has indeed been stolen.

SuperVeg

Money supply

Attachment:

money supply.gif [ 56.04 KiB | Viewed 3221 times ]

Inflation (note corrected inflation, CPI is a lie)

Attachment:

sgs0608-3.gif [ 9.86 KiB | Viewed 3221 times ]

Anyone who thinks that government can improve the world through regulation has no idea what they are talking about and has never read any usefull history. Regulation is used by large corporations to increase monopoly power and drive out competition, very rarely the other way round. SOMETIMES regulation is used in a "good" way, but thats normally to make some other "bad" regulation better.

scotty435

Quote:

Without government intervention monopolies and cartels are inherently unstable and competition will always destroy them.

I suggest you ponder this deeply SV because I don't buy it. For a monopoly to develop, it must have a competitive advantage or be mandated by the government (like Bell Telephone or utility companies). Once it is there it can maintain that advantage by overcharging enough to create a nest egg. Whenever a competitor comes into the market it uses that nest egg to drop it's price until it runs the competitor out of the market. In addition it can monopolize the resources used to create a product so that it prevents competition. They have economies of scale. They can also sue their rivals out of existence or just buy them up. On the up side maybe a bigger monopoly with deeper pockets will come along and wipe them out :headbang:

I think you are assuming that they get sloppy and inneficient but that's not always the case - Alcoa before it was split up would probably be a good example of a strong monopoly that had to be broken up by the US government.

The British East India Company might be another example of a strong monopoly even though it acted as the British governments agent in many locations. Guess who had to break it up? That was back when they could still revoke corporate charters.

Certain types of monopolies would be unstable but not necessarily all.

Quote:

Anyone who thinks that government can improve the world through regulation has no idea what they are talking about and has never read any usefull history.

I Don't agree with this SV. I'm willing to consider that you didn't mean it the way it came out but I rarely agree with a blanket statement like this. What would the world be like it everything was unregulated - would it be better :dontknow:

Kind of doubt it!

Backyard Aquaponics A place to discuss aquaponics

IS This For Real!

Backyard Aquaponics
A place to discuss aquaponics