Goto Chockstone Home

  Guide
  Gallery
  Tech Tips
  Articles
  Reviews
  Dictionary
  Links
  Forum
  Search
  About

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

  Shop

Petzl: D11 "Rappel Rack". For use with 1 or 2 ropes. Diameters from 9mm to 13mm. Two red fixed bars make for easy threading. SUPER Special!  $119.00
21% Off

Chockstone Photography Australian Landscape Photography by Michael Boniwell
Australian Landscape Prints





Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

 Page 3 of 41. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 140 | 141 to 160 | 161 to 180 | 181 to 200 | 201 to 220 | 221 to 240 | 241 to 260 | 261 to 280 | 281 to 300 | 301 to 320 | 321 to 340 | 341 to 360 | 361 to 380 | 381 to 400 | 401 to 420 | 421 to 440 | 441 to 460 | 461 to 480 | 481 to 500 | 501 to 520 | 521 to 540 | 541 to 560 | 561 to 580 | 581 to 600 | 601 to 620 | 621 to 640 | 641 to 660 | 661 to 680 | 681 to 700 | 701 to 720 | 721 to 740 | 741 to 760 | 761 to 780 | 781 to 800 | 801 to 818
Author
OT: Skeptics vs Alarmist Cage Match unSpectacular!

evanbb
20-May-2009
7:06:50 AM
On 19/05/2009 JamesMc wrote:
>BTW, the IPCC seem to think climate change is a bit of a problem.

Yes James, but can't you see? They've got Climate Change in their name, that means they want CC to continue to be a problem, so they can continue to get funding. All of those ridiculously talented scientists are in a MASSIVE conspiracy to defraud the universe out of their research dollars, and to keep them in a job. Otherwise what would they do? Also, because they've got CC in their name, they ignore any evidence tha doesn't support their theories, anyone who is not willing to maintain the status quo. It's all about sun spots anyway! The warming effect that we are not experiencing is all caused by sun cycles. The coal industry is only admitting that it exists because they recognise the marketting bonanza. Al Gore is evil.


Sorry guys, I've been arguing with sceptics for months, and have heard all of these arguments. What can you do? Anyone who believes any of that just doesn't want to hear the truth, and I don't know what to do about it.

Sarah Gara
20-May-2009
7:08:43 AM
On 19/05/2009 evanbb wrote:
>On 19/05/2009 TonyB wrote:
>>There is not a single piece of evidence that
>>man's CO2 has had any effect whatsoever on the global warming in the
>past
>>180 years since the Little Ice Age, or the current global cooling trend.
>
>Tony, everything you posted there is utter nonsense, and I am not going
>to make any attempts at reasoning with you on the topic. Anyone who thinks
>they know better than the UN, NASA and the Coal Industry clearly can not
>be reasoned with.

Have to say I'm with TonyB... Have you guys not seen this video

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=288952680655100870

It's a good watch. All about how co2 and Global warming not related at all to increase in Co2 emissions from humans -I have to say it's got me convinced and I used to be a tree hugging dreadlocked hippy (until I had to get a job) The climatologists on there explain why.

Well worth a view. x

edit: Just found this... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle


I still think the film is worth watching though. x
Wendy
20-May-2009
8:15:47 AM
I'd love to think the environmental movement was so powerful that we had the whole world running around in circles over something we'd just made up. Then we might be able to do more about other environmental issues - land clearing, other pollutants, water use, rates of extinction ...

The IPCC are a particularly good indicator of the existance of the problem because they are in fact, international, and have representatives of the oil producing nations and high emitters like Oz and the US as well as those huggy feeling leftist scandanavian countries. Everything they put out has been rigourously debated by people of vastly different background and vested interests and they have all agreed on it. It is, by virtue of this, the lowest common denominator. Saudi Arabia hardly has an interest in preventing the development of Africa through promoting renewable resources. When the IPCC issues a statement, it really is undeniable and in all probablity, somewhat mellowed out by the process of reaching a concensus.

Climate scepticism is so 90s ....

ajfclark
20-May-2009
8:23:46 AM
On 20/05/2009 evanbb wrote:
>Sorry guys, I've been arguing with sceptics for months, and have heard all of these arguments. What can you do?

You could try something like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg
TonyB
20-May-2009
9:10:18 AM
On 20/05/2009 Wendy wrote:
> When the IPCC issues a statement, it really is undeniable and in all probablity,

The IPCC is a political group, headed by a railway engineer (I'm not kidding). They have now stated enough nonsense to make themselves look stupid. Please have a look at my video for a bit of history:

http://www.vimeo.com/3125298

evanbb
20-May-2009
9:31:18 AM
On 20/05/2009 TonyB wrote:

>The IPCC is a political group, headed by a railway engineer (I'm not kidding).
> They have now stated enough nonsense to make themselves look stupid.

Incredible. I love the argument that "this can't be true, because it's too unbelievable".

What makes you think that a railway engineer doesn't have the skills to manage a science gathering organisation?

evanbb
20-May-2009
9:36:49 AM
On 20/05/2009 TonyB wrote:

>Please have a look at my video for a bit of history:
>
>http://www.vimeo.com/3125298

That's 5 minutes of my life I'll never get back. Not surprisingly, the online video did very little to overthrow my understanding of climate science gathered over the last 20 years, and co-ordinated by the IPCC.

evanbb
20-May-2009
9:39:01 AM
Heat Island Effect on measurements:
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/warming-due-to-urban-heat-island.php

Next?

wallwombat
20-May-2009
10:24:46 AM
"The Union of Concerned Scientists says the Bush administration manipulates and suppresses science. The administration points out that the Union of Bought and Paid for Scientists disagrees."

Fark.com
Wendy
20-May-2009
10:39:05 AM
On 20/05/2009 evanbb wrote:
>Heat Island Effect on measurements:
>http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2006/02/warming-due-to-urban-heat-island.php
>
>Next?

That site is a great list of responses! They do make a lot of the videos claims look as silly as they sound. Like grapes still grow in England today (and why wouldn't they? they are a decidious plant ...) and 80% of the greenland icesheet is 100000s of years old and underneath it is .... rock. Greyland?

How does one jump from evidence that Thatcher developed agencies to investigate CC to she did this because she wants reactors? Maybe, just maybe, she actually thought there was an issue - the late 80s was a period of concern about CC before the great reign of the sceptics in th 90s.
TonyB
21-May-2009
9:10:24 AM
On 19/05/2009 GravityHound wrote:
>On 19/05/2009 TonyB wrote:
> if
>you want some credibilty in your arguments you might want to be a bit less
>selective in the data you use to support them.

No problem. Have a look at the graphs for both Arctic and Antarctic over the past 30 years:
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/n_plot_ires.png
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/s_plot_hires.png

Antarctic ice is growing faster than Arctic ice is reducing. Interestingly the former graph seems to have been "doctored" in the past couple of weeks, in the fashion of Hansen's renouned "adjustments". It was showing 4.7% rather than 3%.

As I expected, no one has posted a shed of evidence that man's CO2 has caused any of the warming over the past 180 years since the Little Ice Age. There is no evidence !

Here is the data used by IPCC, from Hadley Centre / UK Met office for anyone interested in tracking the current global cooling trend.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/crutem3gl.txt
I've written an Excel macro to make plotting easier if anyone wants it.

Here's an excellent technical site with daily updates tracking the latest in climate science.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/




evanbb
21-May-2009
9:23:27 AM
On 21/05/2009 TonyB wrote:
>As I expected, no one has posted a shed of evidence that man's CO2 has
>caused any of the warming over the past 180 years since the Little Ice
>Age. There is no evidence !

Here's the evidence.

Give it a read and let me know what's wrong with it. You can cherry pick graphs of sea ice growth in the last 10 minutes, or increased sun spot activity between tuesday and thursday last week, but that does not overthrow the work of the IPCC. As discussed earlier, they are a political/diplomatic body, that analyses ALL of the evidence, weighs it up, then EVERYONE agrees on it. It is a very conservative document, and yet people still complain about how outrageous it is. Why on Earth would they be making it up? How many countries do you know that want to respond to climate change, and yet they are. Are you telling me the EU, 27 of the biggest economies in the world, are reducing their CO2 emissions as part of some conspiracy?

The fact is that the climate is a big, multi variable/non-linear system, and yes, weird things might happen. Sea ice might grow, there might be a short term cooling in some place or other, but the matter stands; as CO2 in the atmosphere goes up, temperature goes up. So please stop trying to dispute the science, frankly there's no practical way you can, and just admit that you'd rather do nothing than something. I would prefer that level of honesty.
TonyB
21-May-2009
2:26:59 PM
On 21/05/2009 evanbb wrote:
>Here's
>the evidence.

A bit sad if that ( IPCC2007 report ) is supposed to be "evidence". I've already read it in detail. All it does is to discuss its models. It states that "recent data" can be used to validate its models ... the last 11 years cooling clearly shows that its selection of models are wrong !

Have look at this photo of the submarine Skate (SSN-578), surfacing at the North Pole, on 17 March, when sea ice is at a maximum.



If it was 2009 it would be front page news ... it was actually 1959 !

evanbb
21-May-2009
2:52:16 PM
On 21/05/2009 TonyB wrote:
>A bit sad if that ( IPCC2007 report ) is supposed to be "evidence". I've
>already read it in detail.

Tony, it doesn't discuss only models, it goes into great detail about the observations of measured and statisticly significant changes to various climates all over the world. You can't just discredit the whole work with a swish of the hand and a "oh it's all just models".

With as much respect as I can muster, there's actually nothing you personally can do to discredit it. It's like me sitting here and saying "oh, I've figured out this whole quantum uncertainty thing. Everything that the bodies that study this have said is wrong, and I've got a better idea. If they'd just listen to me they'd learn!" It doesn't work like that at all. The IPCC report contains reams and reams of information of OBSERVATIONS that confirm climate change. (Note in this context climate change means a different climate to the previously recorded one, not necessarily a link to human induced CC) You can't turn all of that research over with a picture of a submarine, or a graph of sea ice.

I just keep coming back to the same problem. Why are you opposing the climate change model? What can you gain from gambling so heavily on our future?

GravityHound
21-May-2009
9:17:18 PM
On 21/05/2009 TonyB wrote:
>
>Here is the data used by IPCC, from Hadley Centre / UK Met office for
>anyone interested in tracking the current global cooling trend.
>http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/crutem3gl.txt
>I've written an Excel macro to make plotting easier if anyone wants it.
>
why do you post links that have plenty of data in them that counter what you are trying to convince us of. their home page http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/ has a dandy little graph you should check out and also states that last year was the tenth warmest on record since 1850. pretty plain to me - the climate is changing.

"The time series shows the combined global land and marine surface temperature record from 1850 to 2008. The year 2008 was tenth warmest on record, exceeded by 1998, 2005, 2003, 2002, 2004, 2006, 2001, 2007 and 1997."

and if the risk of human imposed climate change isnt enough of a reason to stop pumping co2 into the atmosphere how about increased acidification of the oceans and the effect that will have on our well being (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification) or is this a political scam as well.

and even if this CC isnt caused by the co2, increases in temperature and co2 are likely to have negative impacts on the yields of crops such as rice, that many countries, particularly developing nations, rely on as a staple food source (use google scholar to find citations in refereed journals).

and if the temp doesnt rise then it is likely to reduce the nutrient content of crops such as rice because the extra carbs produced by a plant and used to increase the yields arent matched with an increase in nutrient uptake.

all good reasons in my mind to change what we are doing with co2.

so why would you want keep on the same co2 path TonyB when it is pretty likely to cause a big mess? what really scares of when it comes to the whole co2 debate? laziness? the financial side of things?



TonyB
22-May-2009
9:20:27 AM
On 21/05/2009 GravityHound wrote:
>why do you post links that have plenty of data in them that counter what
>you are trying to convince us of.

Have you plotted this data for yourself ? It shows :

1. Warming since the Little Ice Age (the data doesn't go back the full 180 yrs)
2. No recent "alarming" increased warming due to increased industrialisation.
3. No warming in the past 12 years
4. A cooling trend of about -0.2 degrees per decade since IPCC2001 (Southern hemisphere data shows even greater cooling). This is about the rate that IPCC 2001 predicted it was supposed to warm !

As I said, I can post my plotting macro for the IPCC data if anyone is interested in the facts, rather than Hollywood movies.

Oceans ... sorry, they are alkaline. The oceans pump out 20 times as much CO2 as man does (you'll find this hidden in the IPCC reports).

Crops ... sorry again. CO2 is the world's cheapest fertilizer (assuming growth is not limited by other factors, such as water etc). Since 1950 CO2 has increased crop yields by an estimated 15%.

"The financial side" ... Yes ! Clearly that's what the CO2 scam is all about. Al Gore's $100,000,000 that he has scammed is tiny. Global carbon taxes are estimated at $2,000,000,000,000 per annum to stop a claimed warming of 0.006 degrees per annum ... that isn't happening. Of course there's also the billions of research dollars ... such as "the effects of climate change on the blue tit". There is BIG money in this nonsense. Anyone who thinks carbon trading is going to help the environment is naive.

>>evanbb
Yes, IPCC2007 does discuss observations as well as its models. However it does not provide a single shed of evidence that man's CO2 is responsible for any of the observations.

There is far better correlation of global temperatures with solar cycles. (Hard to believe the sun could cause warming isn't it). Solar cycle 24 seems to auger a very cool period ahead. There's lots of info on it, such as:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/08/noaa-swpc-solar-cycle-24-prediction-update-released-may-8-2009/

Those wishing to track the progress of the possibility of another Little Ice Age might want to follow:
http://www.solarcycle24.com/

The earth is also overdue for another major ice age. We are currently at the end of a 10,000yr interglacial period. If another Ice Age (large or small) does occur, it will have devasting effects, far worse than any warming. History tells the story.

nmonteith
22-May-2009
10:00:36 AM
What bugs me the most about this whole topic is the single focus on carbon. I'm no scientist and don't know much about the details - but it seems carbon have overwhelmed any talk about other 'green' issues such as water/air/land pollution, deforestation, food contaminants, disease cures ect. For example wouldn't a cure for cancer be a better use of all this effort and money? I personally know a lot more people that have died from cancer, but no one who has died from being slightly hotter. I'm not a skeptic about global warming - i'm just not that convinced on the urgency of the whole thing.

GravityHound
22-May-2009
10:14:12 AM
See where you are coming from but I guess it is a matter of perspective neil. For example, people who live on small islands that will be demolished if sea levels rise might think the co2 issue is the only priority. Many farmers that i deal with are pretty concerned about the future of their livelihoods if the increases in temperature and changes in rainfall occur in our region.

in my area of work CC and the general state of the environment are closely intertwined. less rain = less production = less money = less grass becasue they flog their paddocks to survive = more weeds = more soil erosion = more water contamination = more areas being used when they should probably be reforested.
Wendy
22-May-2009
10:48:04 AM
On 22/05/2009 nmonteith wrote:
>What bugs me the most about this whole topic is the single focus on carbon.
>I'm no scientist and don't know much about the details - but it seems carbon
>have overwhelmed any talk about other 'green' issues such as water/air/land
>pollution, deforestation, food contaminants, disease cures ect. For example
>wouldn't a cure for cancer be a better use of all this effort and money?
>I personally know a lot more people that have died from cancer, but no
>one who has died from being slightly hotter. I'm not a skeptic about global
>warming - i'm just not that convinced on the urgency of the whole thing.

One of the useful things about the issue is it does connect a whole pile of these issues - deforestation is part of the problem and thus stopping it a priority. Reveg is part of the solution. Both things help animals facing habitat destruction. Sources of carbon are also sources of other pollutants which will thus also be reduced and not enter the food chain. Climate change is increasing the range of nasty diseases such as mozzie born ones so unless we want to have malaria and japanese encephalitis in Oz, I'd say addressing it is kind of helpful. People are dying from cc - look at death rates in heat waves, in extreme weather events, related things like bushfires, famines, epidemics, we even have climate refugees. Cancer is going to look like a very small part of illness/death rates in the face of cc. But cancer rates (as well as so called lifestyle illnesses) could go down by such simple things as not smoking, healthy diets, sensible alcohol consumption, exercise etc etc.

evanbb
22-May-2009
10:58:09 AM
On 22/05/2009 nmonteith wrote:
>What bugs me the most about this whole topic is the single focus on carbon.
>I'm no scientist and don't know much about the details - but it seems carbon
>have overwhelmed any talk about other 'green' issues such as water/air/land
>pollution, deforestation, food contaminants, disease cures ect. For example
>wouldn't a cure for cancer be a better use of all this effort and money?

A couple of points here Neil; a well engineered solution to CO2, will solve some of those other problems as well. Those problems keep getting solved, and keeping a focus on CO2 allows this to be incorporated into other problems as they are solved. The moral imperative is the big issue for me with CO2; we won't feel the effects directly, in anything like the way that poor farmers in the developing world will. Lots of people have died from being slightly hotter BTW; check out the mortality statistics from the heatwave in France last year. 300 people a week or something.

On 'the cure for cancer', it's a bit of a political football. The cheapest/most effective health measure BY A MILE would be prevention. Healthy lifestyle, more exercise, no smoking. It's a very simple formula and everyone in the industry knows it. Lots of people consider the dollars chucked at cancer/obesity/heart disease research as political grandstanding, when the thing that would make the biggest difference is starting from a healthier base line.

 Page 3 of 41. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 120 | 121 to 140 | 141 to 160 | 161 to 180 | 181 to 200 | 201 to 220 | 221 to 240 | 241 to 260 | 261 to 280 | 281 to 300 | 301 to 320 | 321 to 340 | 341 to 360 | 361 to 380 | 381 to 400 | 401 to 420 | 421 to 440 | 441 to 460 | 461 to 480 | 481 to 500 | 501 to 520 | 521 to 540 | 541 to 560 | 561 to 580 | 581 to 600 | 601 to 620 | 621 to 640 | 641 to 660 | 661 to 680 | 681 to 700 | 701 to 720 | 721 to 740 | 741 to 760 | 761 to 780 | 781 to 800 | 801 to 818
There are 818 messages in this topic.

 

Home | Guide | Gallery | Tech Tips | Articles | Reviews | Dictionary | Forum | Links | About | Search
Chockstone Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | Landscape Photos Australia

Please read the full disclaimer before using any information contained on these pages.



Australian Panoramic | Australian Coast | Australian Mountains | Australian Countryside | Australian Waterfalls | Australian Lakes | Australian Cities | Australian Macro | Australian Wildlife
Landscape Photo | Landscape Photography | Landscape Photography Australia | Fine Art Photography | Wilderness Photography | Nature Photo | Australian Landscape Photo | Stock Photography Australia | Landscape Photos | Panoramic Photos | Panoramic Photography Australia | Australian Landscape Photography | High Country Mountain Huts | Mothers Day Gifts | Gifts for Mothers Day | Mothers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Mothers Day | Wedding Gift Ideas | Christmas Gift Ideas | Fathers Day Gifts | Gifts for Fathers Day | Fathers Day Gift Ideas | Ideas for Fathers Day | Landscape Prints | Landscape Poster | Limited Edition Prints | Panoramic Photo | Buy Posters | Poster Prints