[geeyoutoo]

As you would be aware Ross Garnaut has produced another update to his 2008 climate change report, but wait there's more, there are another 7 to come, $$$$$$$$$. This recent review of his review is an interesting read for us skeptics.

You may remember Ross Garnaut was the chairman of Lihir Gold (Papua New Guinea) from 1995 to 2010, while they were complaining about Australian miners, I have spent a lot of time up there and if you knew some of the practises by gold mining companies there you would be shocked, not very climate change friendly even I will agree with that. He gave up his Chairmanship in 2010, I wonder why, conflict of interest.

He, Bob Down er Bob Brown should get under the same rock with Penny Wong.

Garnaut’s Updates – even more political - On Line Opinion - 7/2/2011

 

[Ray!]

Like Gore, Garnaut has probably found a new way to milk the global warming scam and look squeaky clean. I wonder what Tim Flummery has up his sleeve, now that his last venture has evaporated like most green schemes.

Cheers

Ray

 

[waz65]

Well the first line in the article says it all " for an unknown fee "

 

[Grafe]

Don't you just hate these consultants, who are bought by the Government with our money, to produce a report that agrees with their political ideology.

Imagine if the consultant disagreed.......would he/she be asked to provide another report ever again?

When I was working a consultant was paid a ludicrous amount of money to examine the efficiency of our unit and make recommendations as to reform. He managed to blacken the reputation of one of the best units in Australasia and it made the papers. Our unit's international efficiency was recognised in international scientific journals.

The ***** was wrong and it took us three months of our valuable time and effort to prove it.

There was no apology from the consultant and the report was quietly shelved. No mention of the $300,000 the ***** was paid.

:headwall:

 

[Mic]

I must agree with Grafe' ssentiments on con-sultants. I used to be one. Whilst i'm a believer in climate change and our impacts upon it, i hate how it has be come a tool for politicians. Now people just ignore it, or look at the science from a single side and deny it is happening. People should take a skeptical approach to the scientific process - after all whait is science, but skepticism?- and make up their own minds.

However, when people jump on board to make a quick buck, they just add to the arguments agains the science through allowing themselves to be discredited, and in the process, the organisation they're working 'for'...

 

[estcove]

The temperature is going up on Jupiter too. 5 million ks away. Man made? Yeah Right.

 

[Mic]

Climate change = Y2K with 10 years of development to work out how to con even more people out of even more money.

No, climate change atually happens - has been for ever. Y2K didn't and won't.
Climate change has been hijacked by both sides of politics and industry for profit.

 

[moose2367]

'Climate change' is happening, your right. But it's got stuff all to do with us being here. The world is millions of years old and has been changing for that same amount of time, since it began.
We've only noticed the 'changing' in a poofteenth of the time the earth has been around, so it's a natural thing.
The 'climate change' bandwagon don't seem to realise that we as humans play an insignificant part in the way the world actually evolves.
'Climate changeer" - if it's hot it's our fault, if it's cold it's our fault. Get over it, like alot of other people they have to find someone to blame.

 

[Ray!]

Climate change has been hijacked by both sides of politics and industry for profit.

It's also being used by many (of the Left) for the basis of social engineering. That's why they're called Watermelons - Green on the Outside, Red on the Inside.

Cheers

Ray

 

[geeyoutoo]

It's also being used by many (of the Left) for the basis of social engineering. That's why they're called Watermelons - Green on the Outside, Red on the Inside.

Cheers

Ray

Have not heard that one before Ray, very clever.

Also someone mentioned the temperature on Jupiter rising. The planets are under each others gravitational forces and at the moment we are being significantly effected by Jupiter and with the higher solar flare activity, this all impacts on us so weather will be dodgy for some time to come.

 

[Mic]

'Climate change' is happening, your right. But it's got stuff all to do with us being here. The world is millions of years old and has been changing for that same amount of time, since it began.
We've only noticed the 'changing' in a poofteenth of the time the earth has been around, so it's a natural thing.

I agree with you here mate.

The 'climate change' bandwagon don't seem to realise that we as humans play an insignificant part in the way the world actually evolves.

I think you're wrong on thius one though. What i think you're failing to realise is that the climate change 'bandwagon' as you call them don't think we're causing climate change, but affecting it. The effect the anthroposphere is having on the environment can be quantified. It's the politicians using it as a lever to gain votes from one another by preaching it or denigrating it depending on who's votes they value. It is not only measurable in the air, but look to populations and communities of different species of migratory moths and green tree frogs for example. We put pressure animals from a habitat perspective (destroying natural habitat for industry, housing), which changes local climatic conditions which has huge effects on the remaining creatures capable of living in urbanised areas. This is as the natural ecosysytem is replaced by concrete and bitumen, local average temperatures are altered due to higher / lower thermal retention - wich in turn can change local waether patterns. i.e. rain occurs more often on weekends then early in the week. This is due to particulate buildup in the atmosphere providing a 'nucleus' for water droplets to adhere to.

'Climate changeer" - if it's hot it's our fault, if it's cold it's our fault. Get over it, like alot of other people they have to find someone to blame.

This too, is all too true. But again, it is political bullshit.

 

[Ray!]

I think you're wrong on thius one though. What i think you're failing to realise is that the climate change 'bandwagon' as you call them don't think we're causing climate change, but affecting it. The effect the anthroposphere is having on the environment can be quantified. It's the politicians using it as a lever to gain votes from one another by preaching it or denigrating it depending on who's votes they value. It is not only measurable in the air, but look to populations and communities of different species of migratory moths and green tree frogs for example. We put pressure animals from a habitat perspective (destroying natural habitat for industry, housing), which changes local climatic conditions which has huge effects on the remaining creatures capable of living in urbanised areas. This is as the natural ecosysytem is replaced by concrete and bitumen, local average temperatures are altered due to higher / lower thermal retention - wich in turn can change local waether patterns. i.e. rain occurs more often on weekends then early in the week. This is due to particulate buildup in the atmosphere providing a 'nucleus' for water droplets to adhere to.

I've debated this one before and I'll do so again. There is still no proof that man has had any effect on climate change, global warming, call it what you will. The so called science is an utter scam at the moment, being pushed for political, monetary and social engineering reasons. If the science was so thoroughly settled, why aren't the pro-climate change scientists prepared to debate the issue in public forums? The reason why is because every single piece of their so called evidence will be shot down in flames.

If all the panic was so true, then we have well and truly passed the tipping point (so conveniently extended every time that we do), so that the best and most logical thing that we can now do is keep on doing what we've done so far ie nothing, because we're all doomed anyway. But we're not doomed, because we are simply living in a changing environment that we cannot influence and it's hubris to think that we can.

Now environmental pollution, encroachment into native habitats, introduction of foreign fauna and flora will all have an effect on native fauna and flora, like your moths and frogs. Changes to micro-climates has nothing to do with global climatic change and many a species has become extinct in the past due to significant global climatic changes. It's quite spurious to introduce local environmental issues to the global climate change debate, as they are entirely different issues.

And on a final note, the fear that we're all going to hell if the global temperatures rise a few degrees is utter crap. The global temperatures have been significantly higher in the past and everything has thrived, people lived and grew crops in places that are now covered in ice; the world was a much better place to live in. Climate models are just that, models; created with limited information, and enhanced with guesswork and fluffy figures to produce anything the esteemed climate scientists require to support their motives.

Cheers

Ray

 

[bennoGU28]

Go get em Ray!

Vocal socialists, watermelons and hippies are the Leftist puppet masters modern day version of "useful idiots".

 

[moose2367]

I think you're wrong on thius one though. What i think you're failing to realise is that the climate change 'bandwagon' as you call them don't think we're causing climate change, but affecting it. The effect the anthroposphere is having on the environment can be quantified. It's the politicians using it as a lever to gain votes from one another by preaching it or denigrating it depending on who's votes they value. It is not only measurable in the air, but look to populations and communities of different species of migratory moths and green tree frogs for example. We put pressure animals from a habitat perspective (destroying natural habitat for industry, housing), which changes local climatic conditions which has huge effects on the remaining creatures capable of living in urbanised areas. This is as the natural ecosysytem is replaced by concrete and bitumen, local average temperatures are altered due to higher / lower thermal retention - wich in turn can change local waether patterns. i.e. rain occurs more often on weekends then early in the week. This is due to particulate buildup in the atmosphere providing a 'nucleus' for water droplets to adhere to.

Not too sure about all of this though. I work with a lot of greenies and eviro's, unfortunatley. Most of them don't believe in 'climate change' either, which is probably the only good thing about them.
The higher/lower temperature thing, i think is just a natural occurence, it may have happened 500 million years ago, who would be to blame then, the dinosaurs for farting too much?
As for the populations of moths, frogs etc, there's been bugger all difference that i can see, and we do frog monitoring, bat monitoring etc. The biggest single thing to affect other wildlife, here in the NT at least, is the cane toad. It eats a lot of what other frogs eat, contaminates water and kills snakes, crocs, goannas, birds, dingo's/wild dogs(good).

I think that the majority of people are aware that it is all a political game and if you mention anything 'green' or 'climate change' for an idea or project you'll get more funding than someone who doesn't.

The government is now playing it as a way to get more money from us taxpayers, plain and simple.

It's an issue that will never be 'won' by either side.

 

[truckster]

 

[Mic]

I've debated this one before and I'll do so again. There is still no proof that man has had any effect on climate change, global warming, call it what you will. The so called science is an utter scam at the moment, being pushed for political, monetary and social engineering reasons. If the science was so thoroughly settled, why aren't the pro-climate change scientists prepared to debate the issue in public forums? The reason why is because every single piece of their so called evidence will be shot down in flames.

If all the panic was so true, then we have well and truly passed the tipping point (so conveniently extended every time that we do), so that the best and most logical thing that we can now do is keep on doing what we've done so far ie nothing, because we're all doomed anyway. But we're not doomed, because we are simply living in a changing environment that we cannot influence and it's hubris to think that we can.

Now environmental pollution, encroachment into native habitats, introduction of foreign fauna and flora will all have an effect on native fauna and flora, like your moths and frogs. Changes to micro-climates has nothing to do with global climatic change and many a species has become extinct in the past due to significant global climatic changes. It's quite spurious to introduce local environmental issues to the global climate change debate, as they are entirely different issues.

And on a final note, the fear that we're all going to hell if the global temperatures rise a few degrees is utter crap. The global temperatures have been significantly higher in the past and everything has thrived, people lived and grew crops in places that are now covered in ice; the world was a much better place to live in. Climate models are just that, models; created with limited information, and enhanced with guesswork and fluffy figures to produce anything the esteemed climate scientists require to support their motives.

Cheers

Ray

I was using local phenomena to illustrate my point of how humans play their role in climate change. I have never thought for one second that we are entirely responsible - not even close, but we do have a role. Only difference is we have the greatest ability to reduce our impact.

i also don't agree that humankind, and the planet is doomed if GW continues (which it will).

Personally, i am more concerned with conservation biology that we s humans are affecting. Extinctions happen, but we should be doing something to control those which we are the main cause of the extinction be it habitat degradation / air quality etc.

 

[Foo]

The bloody planet has been hotter, colder and the sea levels have been higher and lower for crying out loud.:headwall:

Have a look at the suns' activity at the moment! This is what governs earths climate, along with the moon. It (the sun) is going through a cycle of high activity and has only started recently and they last for years. The same cycle that happened in the late 60s to early 80s.:doh:

Humane cause pollution of the earth, along with volcanoes!:eyepoke:

 

[bennoGU28]

Mic, I whole heartedly support the concept of sustainability.

But I simply do not accept any of the "facts" behind global warming and the alarmist false predictions in the IPCC report make it a joke of socialist european green movements.

The problem is that the Green party in australia has welded a link between sustainability and climate change as sustainability is a mainstream issue that people actually care about. Almost all businesses support sustainability as there is no point making money today if you cant make money tomorrow. Climate change is a fringe issue just like the greens are a fringe party.

We need to destroy the perception that sustainability is linked to climate change.

 

[Ray!]

I was using local phenomena to illustrate my point of how humans play their role in climate change. I have never thought for one second that we are entirely responsible - not even close, but we do have a role. Only difference is we have the greatest ability to reduce our impact.

i also don't agree that humankind, and the planet is doomed if GW continues (which it will).

Personally, i am more concerned with conservation biology that we s humans are affecting. Extinctions happen, but we should be doing something to control those which we are the main cause of the extinction be it habitat degradation / air quality etc.

But the illustration that you made has nothing to do with global climatic changes, which is what the debate (if we were allowed to have one) is all about. I don't think what you said was intentional, but suggesting that micro-climatic changes, amongst other things, that affect local fauna and flora is related to global climatic changes, is verging on being deceitful. So again, I hope that's not what you intended.

Essentially, I'm a conservationist, far more than most inner city Melbourne Greenies that only imagine what happens in the bush, rather than experience it for themselves. I want to be able to keep experiencing the bush, the way that I've known it, for the rest of my life. But I don't cry for a worm or a moth that meets its evolutionary end, nor do I see a pressing need to preserve the remnants of same, if that means that everything has to stop or be closed off to do it.

We can't preserve everything and that's the way nature intended it to be; evolution is a never ending cycle of birth and death, new replaces old. It's only humans that have placed an unrealistic value on trying to preserve everything. Seriously, there are some who now want to save the foxes, wild cats and dogs, and who knows what else.

Cheers

Ray

 

[heyhey]

I was using local phenomena to illustrate my point of how humans play their role in climate change. I have never thought for one second that we are entirely responsible - not even close, but we do have a role. Only difference is we have the greatest ability to reduce our impact.

But that there is another problem, these so called scientist measure changes at one locality and don't take into account the change at another to cause an equilibrium (not that they can measure environmental equilibrium anyway). They just look at the locations changing the most and say, "this is an example of the world". 2 years ago almost to the day, Victoria experienced a 48 degree day, also 3 or 4 years ago on Christmas day I went to the snow on Mt Donna Buang in Warburton, Victoria, Australia :wink:. So where was the change? It changed about 48 degrees in 2 years!!! PANIC STATIONS EVERYONE!!!!

There is not enough information to accurately confirm a lot term trend of acceleration of warming on earth as we do not have the tools or records available to accurately measure the acceleration and the affect humans have had. We can have a guess but if scientist think that they can guess the average temperature to the .1 of a degree from a ring in a tree to come up with the world has warmed .6 of a degree in the last 100 years, they have some serious tech there that cannot possibly be explained to humans or they are taking an estimated guess that cannot be proven or audited.

What was the change the 100 years before the last. Could have dropped an average of 1.5 degrees but even if it did, politics and corporations won't let us know, not that they can prove it.