Backyard Aquaponics
A place to discuss aquaponics

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.

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...

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.

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.

Yes the truth is very confusing for the average person, that's why we rely on scientists who spend their life studying these things, releasing their finding in peer reviewed publications.

Have you ever spoken to a scientist, let alone a climate scientist or oceanographer or similar, anyone involved in scientific research? Do you have the slightest idea or is it just about spouting whatever stuff is repeated on anti-climate change websites. Do you think they are just having a huge party making themselves millions of $ stuck in horrible remote freezing places for months and months on end, taking samples, studying masses of data, away from family and friends for months on end. I am yet to meet a scientist who's motivation is money. they probably exist, but they aren't in the climate science game, they are into genetics or other lines where there's big $ to be made. Hoping for big bucks from monsanto or medical science companies



Are they to be trusted on matters of science? Really, look at there site. Was their one link to a website of any credibility backed by any form of science? Stick "world" and "organization" into your name and it implies some form of credibility, only implies. The links are all to opinion sites, nothing to do with facts or science.

The spin put on this topic is quite amazing, climate scientists buying multimillion dollar houses on the coast? Right, where?

Satellite temperatures vs land based temp data? That's been debunked many times over...

Lets look at some places with a bit of credibility who have release statements saying that they support the IPCC findings ..

Nasa -
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

American Meteorological Society
American Geophysical Union
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Geological Society of America
U.S. National Academy of Sciences
National Research Council of the National Academies
European Academy of Sciences and Arts
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
Network of African Science Academies
Royal Society of New Zealand
Royal Society of the United Kingdom
Polish Academy of Sciences
National Research Council (US)
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society

And on and on the list goes...



These are facts, the best of our scientific minds on this planet. So if you are told there's a 97-98% chance of being killed if you drank a glass sitting in front of you, would you do it? Would you say yeah but hang on, there are 2-3% of experts who say "they don't know", would you do it?

Climate change is occurring and its because of all the crap we throw into the seas, and water ways as well as mowing down and killing off carbon sinking rainforests and wetlands. It will get much worse as the population spirals out of control and everyone wants their bit.
Watch this guy and watch the whole thing if you want a perspective on it from someone who has been looking into this for decades
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/james_ ... hange.html

The website was just an example EB, obviously.

Without getting all emotional over the topic, my point is read both sides carefully.
There are many scientists who disagree with the global warming idea. Not 2-3 % as you claim.

There are also very large amounts of money going into climate science and the spin-off industries and technologies, as I have already mentioned. Look it up.

Re: buying mansions.
The two high profile people that come to mind are Tim Flannery, Australia's high profile Chief Commissioner of the Australian Climate Commission, also chairman of the Copenhagen Climate Council.
Al Gore: (everyone seen his video that convinced the masses) THIS guy benefits greatly from our carbon tax (about 50% of it), very closely tied to the World Bank and other vested interests.

On September 22nd, a shocking study from Oxfam International provided the evidence and insight on how the World Bank, coupled with the United Nations, used the carbon credit scheme introduced by Al Gore, and other green advocates, to literally rob landowners in the country of Uganda of their property, and even bringing about the death of a child when they burned down homes and villages.

All so that a grove of trees could be planted on that land.

The government of Uganda and the“carbon credits” firm New Forests Company — accredited by the United Nations and largely financed by the World Bank and the European Union — are under intense public pressure after evidence emerged that over 20,000 poor Ugandan farmers were brutally evicted from their lands in order for the U.K.-based company to plant trees. The atrocities, publicized in a September 22 report by the non-profit aid group Oxfam, have made headlines around the world.

Under the guise of saving the environment from global warming and climate change, armed enforcers reportedly burned locals’ houses to the ground — along with at least one child who was inside his home when it was set ablaze. The goon squads also reportedly terrorized and beat the residents, threatening to murder anyone who resisted. – The New American
http://www.examiner.com/article/un-and-the-world-bank-now-involved-land-theft-over-carbon-credit-scheme

So can anyone tell me why half our carbon tax goes to the World Bank ?

I dont agree with the way our carbon tax is set up, and no, not one cent should go to the world bank moguls

Australia is not the only country who pay this tax.
The Carbon Tax does not have an upper limit, so WILL go up in the future.
This means a LOT of money could be going to the World Bank and friends.

Doesn't this beg the question: Do you think there might be some incentive to exaggerate the effects of man's activites on the planet ?

Does anyone actualy believe that channelling billions of dollars from people from around the world to a handful of organisations isn't just a little dodgy ?

EDIT: Read somewhere else that the percentage of the carbon tax paid to UN/World Bank is 10% elsewhere it was around 50%. If anyone knows this figure please say so. I don't have all night to read the latest gubbmint publications..

Yes the way these taxes are set up is dodgey big time, which is why we should do it differently , but Julia and here green clowns are being led by other forces me thinks.
We need to find a way to cut back on population, without a plague or mass starvation that will probably happen the way we are headed

So are you suggesting that all of the organizations I listed are corrupt, and it's all part of a big plot?

The figures I quoted are facts, you can't just say:

I'm not claiming anything, just listing figures... Is it immoral or illegal for someone to buy any property? Tim Flannery is an author of many books, is it somehow immoral or illegal for him to buy a house? Does that some mean climate change is not real?

I really don't think we need to "cut back" on population to be honest.
As technology gets better and real science gets better, we get more efficient at growing food, using energy, and not polluting. We have come a long way since the industrial revolution.

The biggest factor slowing down our advancement is government protectionism. Intervening in food/energy/pollution and multitudes of other regulations distorts the market and prevents new technogies from appearing at the right time. If you reduce oil prices you retard the growth of alternatives. If you add taxes to carbon and give money to green tech, then you create unnatural corrupt and inefficient growth in that sector that produces much less real products and causes huge disadvantages in other sectors, along with the busts that come with all booms.

And on top of all that, when we actually start running out of food/habitable planet then the population will be naturally curbed anyway.

What a weird way to think, Im out of here

No EB, but who funds all these organisations? There may not be any conscious bias by many of these, however when more money comes in for certain studies and less for others, you do tend to get a shift in objectivity.

One major assumption of the entire quote:

out of scientists who publish in climate publications... Do you think these publications would publish an equal amout of pro/con climate change articles?
Do you think these publications are totally unbiased and unaffected by political lobbying, governement money and other interests ?

Climate science like any other is not totally unlike the medical science industry, where corporate interests with politician whoring can discretely shift the entire attitude of an industy.
Reasearch need to get paid for, scientists need to keep their jobs and feed their families.

But I'm not here to convince you of anything (pretty sure that isn't possible) but I'm just asking all others reading this to please think, and consider both sides. ESPECIALLY if the government is pushing some agenda and lots money is changing hands.

Really what do you propose?
Mandatory child restrictions (like China) ?
Forcing every 3rd child to be killed?

I thought my idea was the most natural and ethical, but I did just make it up