Goto Chockstone Home

  Guide
  Gallery
  Tech Tips
  Articles
  Reviews
  Dictionary
  Links
  Forum
  Search
  About

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

  Shop
FREIGHT FREE
in Australia

Black Diamond: 10mm DYNEX: 60cm (24") Runner. (Open round sling) Great for making "extender" quick-draws. IMO   $10.00
28% Off

Chockstone Photography Australian Landscape Photography by Michael Boniwell
Australian Landscape Prints





Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

 Page 3 of 6. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 111
Author
OT - new carbon tax
citationx
3/03/2011
9:28:37 AM
On 26/02/2011 TonyB wrote:

Tony B, what exactly do you do for a living, to be talking about all this?
I am at work and can really only be bothered looking at one thing in your post, "I pointed out that sea levels have been rising for the past 8000 years, with the rate of rise slowly decreasing to the point that there has been almost no change over the past 50 years". (As I said, what do you do exactly for you to know this? Are you an actual climatologist to be able to query the guy at the head of the IPCC?)
I did a google search for "sea-level rises last 5,000 years" (not using "" in the query). The very first result states (amongst other things):
"By the mid-Holocene period, 6000-5000 years ago, glacial melting had essentially ceased...Over the past few thousand years, the rate of sea level rise remained fairly low, probably not exceeding a few tenths of a millimeter per year."
Then:
"Twentieth century sea level trends, however, are substantially higher that those of the last few thousand years. The current phase of accelerated sea level rise appears to have begun in the mid/late 19th century to early 20th century, based on coastal sediments from a number of localities. Twentieth century global sea level, as determined from tide gauges in coastal harbors, has been increasing by 1.7-1.8 mm/yr, apparently related to the recent climatic warming trend. Most of this rise comes from warming of the world's oceans and melting of mountain glaciers, which have receded dramatically in many places especially during the last few decades. Since 1993, an even higher sea level trend of about 2.8 mm/yr has been measured from the TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite altimeter. Analysis of longer tide-gauge records (1870-2004) also suggests a possible late 20th century acceleration in global sea level."
That was taken from NASA, a fairly well-funded US agency.
Where do you get your information, and where do you get off with such, seemingly, BS?

evanbb
3/03/2011
10:14:16 AM
For a really informative assessment of the carbon tax, look no further than Mary Jo Fisher, who is an actual senator in our actual senate.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/video/2011/03/02/3153400.htm


Gavo
3/03/2011
10:28:40 AM
The idea that sea level rises has not occurred substantially over the past 50 years is outright absurd.

There are multiple communities, particularly in swampy/mangrove areas, that have been forced to relocate in just the past 5 years.

Additionally, current rates are apparently going to inundate low-lying islands within X amount of years, and we are talking less than 100.

Deniers of anthropogenic climate change are outright stupid and/or ignorant. I know of no other way to state it. Those who deny it SUPPOSEDLY on a scientific level are almost never ACTUAL CLIMATE SCIENTISTS.

If anyones interested in learning about the complete fluff associated with the "argument' against climate change, I can put together a few links tonight after work and email them out.

Its happening, its accelerated because of us, reputable scientists TRAINED IN THE FIELD ARE IN UNANIMOUS SUPPORT OF THIS NOTION, and we cant stop it, we can just act now to prevent the absolute worst case, and just be left with a bad case.


Gavo
3/03/2011
10:40:01 AM
stuff it, Im bloody fired up now.

Here is the first and probably best for most, document to read.

http://www.science.org.au/reports/climatechange2010.pdf

Nice and concise. To anyone denying sea level rises, please refer to page 9, and view figure 3.4.

To quote from the description:

"...From 1900 to 2000 the average rate of rise was about 1.7 mm/yr, increasing through this period. Since 1993 the rate of rise measured by satellite altimeters has been about 3.2 mm/yr and from tide gauges about 3.0 mm/yr."


One Day Hero
3/03/2011
11:54:28 AM
Guys, you're getting it all wrong! Don't ask TonyB what he does for a living, ask him what brand of retard he is?

The dude is taking the graph of Global Mean Temperature against Time, ignoring the steady upward staircase of the last hundred years, zooming in on the last decade, and taking the slight decrease since the maximum in 1998................as proof positive of imminent and devastating GLOBAL COOLING. (given that 2010 may now be declared the hottest in recorded history, it will add extra retardedness if he keeps pushing this spasmo line)

I would suggest focussing your energy on making tony's life just a little bit more miserable, rather than trying to engage him on his dumbshit environmental views.

Shit, he can't even work out simple climbing stuff........tony's the goose who thought that the new carrots at Cosmic were bad, just cause they had the corners ground off. Too dumb to climb up and test to see if a bracket would flick off, means way too dumb to be involved in climate change debate!

billk
3/03/2011
12:00:22 PM
On 3/03/2011 citationx wrote:
>On 26/02/2011 TonyB wrote:
>
>Tony B, what exactly do you do for a living, to be talking about all this?

>Where do you get your information, and where do you get off with such,
>seemingly, BS?

I would hazard to guess that he really sincerely believes everything he posts on this.

However, I wouldn't mind betting many opinion leaders of climate change denial (I don't know - Tony Abbott and Andrew Bolt for starters) probably don't believe what they say but believe some greater interest is served by egging the Tony B's on.

One side believes that nature is fragile and economies are resilient so its safer to mess around with the latter. The other side seems to believe the exact opposite. There must be a whole lot more to it as well but I think that's a good starting to point for understanding both the sincere climate change denialists and those who think climate change is happening but we can't risk economic disaster by doing anything about it.


Gavo
3/03/2011
12:01:16 PM
I dont want to directly insult anyones intelligence because I am not the sharpest tool in the shed. I just fire up when something so major and most importantly, so supported by evidence, gets put to "debate" when there is NO debate.

Spreading of dis-information leads only to a fence-sitting public remaining on the fence, and the issues being discussed among the leaders, rather than acted on.

Thus my anger. I dont want anyone in my presence to have the right to say "I didnt know". Everyone should know, and everyone should be made aware that people exist that will argue things even as clear and obvious as this. But its paramount that people do not think that arguments against the human origin of the current levels of warming, and therefore all the subsequent impacts, have any real validity.

Asses that propogate such thoughts are going to ruin the damned planet for future generations. I cant and wont abide that.

Gavo
3/03/2011
12:06:09 PM
On 3/03/2011 billk wrote:

>One side believes that nature is fragile and economies are resilient so
>its safer to mess around with the latter. The other side seems to believe
>the exact opposite. There must be a whole lot more to it as well but I
>think that's a good starting to point for understanding both the sincere
>climate change denialists and those who think climate change is happening
>but we can't risk economic disaster by doing anything about it.

The cold hard truth of it is this:

We have done irreversible damage to the planet. And its getting worse. If we slow down or stop our damage, the effects will be less than if we do not.

Abiding flawed arguments and allowing delays is exactly what the problem is. It perpetuates inaction which is what we cannot afford to do, and what a volume of actual evidence telling us NOT to do.

Many people dont seem to consider the gravity of the problem.

billk
3/03/2011
12:26:25 PM
On 3/03/2011 Gavo wrote:
>>The cold hard truth of it is this:
>
>We have done irreversible damage to the planet. And its getting worse.
>If we slow down or stop our damage, the effects will be less than if we
>do not.
>
>Abiding flawed arguments and allowing delays is exactly what the problem
>is. It perpetuates inaction which is what we cannot afford to do, and what
>a volume of actual evidence telling us NOT to do.
>
>Many people dont seem to consider the gravity of the problem.

I think we are of one mind on this. I'm not for abiding flawed arguments, I'm for trying to work out what is going on in the minds of the other side and how we can either convince them that they are wrong or find more effective ways of working around them.

Here is a report from the American Psychological Association on what psychology and sociology can tell us about responding to climate change:

http:///www.apa.org/science/about/publications/climate-change.aspx

Unfortunately it is rather light on for insights about cliamte change denial (which appears to be a very understudied phenomenon in relation to how important it is).

big g
3/03/2011
12:40:50 PM
I have follwed this entire thread out of interest because I am a science teacher who believes that some form of science education should be compulsary after Y10 so that we can actually have sensible debate about climate change. Very few of our politicians have any science training and very few civil servants have science training yet we entrust glaobally important decisions to them every day. I met a guy from CSIRO who was quitting after spending years in Canberra dealing with politicians with no science training, yet making environmental decisions.

To the non-beleivers in science I suggest you jump on youtube and watch Tim Minchin's 'Storm'. It says what I think quite eloquently.

I don't know if the carbon tax will work but we need to do something as the true scientific community consider climate change to be fact and have done for decades.

Gavo
3/03/2011
1:16:12 PM
I think one of the biggest factors, is we have people who just "dont know". So they try to be what they imagine is objective, and "listen" to both sides. But its not objective, and each side is not equal.

On the good side you have real climate scientists who do actual research in the field, and they form a massive number, and then on the evil side you have just a few bad eggs, almost always not even real climate scientists, arguing against something for which there is loads of evidence.

Unfortunately, if people want to be genuinely objective, they need to learn at least a little of the scientific method and try to establish the sources of information and then assess what weight opinions should receive, as well as going through data.

Ill stop whining. I gave a great piece of literature above, easy to read, and I encourage anyone who doesnt know about these things, to read it.

ajfclark
3/03/2011
2:02:59 PM
Look, here's another way to get the (male) denialists onboard: Tell them climate change is threatening Great Tits.
maxdacat
3/03/2011
2:46:54 PM
On 3/03/2011 big g wrote:
>>To the non-beleivers in science I suggest you jump on youtube and watch
>Tim Minchin's 'Storm'. It says what I think quite eloquently.

science proceeds on the basis of proving falsifiable theories. Climate change claims are not falsifiable ie what is the control group? How do you build another world without carbon emissions to test the claim?

People who say how can you ignore THE SCIENCE obviously don't understand much about the field. It is true that scientists are largely responsible for the body of study but I am sure even they wouldn't argue correlation equals causation.

billk
3/03/2011
2:48:49 PM
On 3/03/2011 big g wrote:
>I have follwed this entire thread out of interest because I am a science
>teacher who believes that some form of science education should be compulsary
>after Y10 so that we can actually have sensible debate about climate change.

The first climate change skeptic I encountered was my chemistry teacher back in 1979. He banged on the map of the world at the front of the classroom, somewhere south of Tasmania, and said: "This is why I think all this stuff about the Greenhouse Effect is BS! The oceans provide an absolutely enormous sink for carbon dioxide. They will soak up anything we put into the atmosphere." (I might not have word perfect memory 32 years later but I reckon I'm close.)

I wasn't smartarse enough to put up my hand and ask it but the question that immediately came into my head was: " Why doesn't somebody go out and measure it?"
In fact they had been for about 30 years (on Mauna Loa and in the Antarctic) and were getting the clear answer that atmospheric CO2 had been steadily rising for all of that period. Pity Jack the Bear didn't know about that research and tell us about it.

Anyway, I agree that teaching more about clear thinking and a respect for evidence would help foster more rational debate across the board.

billk
3/03/2011
3:07:47 PM
On 3/03/2011 maxdacat wrote:
>On 3/03/2011 big g wrote:
>>>To the non-beleivers in science I suggest you jump on youtube and watch
>>Tim Minchin's 'Storm'. It says what I think quite eloquently.
>
>science proceeds on the basis of proving falsifiable theories. Climate
>change claims are not falsifiable ie what is the control group? How do
>you build another world without carbon emissions to test the claim?
>
>People who say how can you ignore THE SCIENCE obviously don't understand
>much about the field. It is true that scientists are largely responsible
>for the body of study but I am sure even they wouldn't argue correlation
>equals causation.

Most of the time correlation DOES equal causation. However, on its own a correlation doesn't tell you which direction the causal arrows point in.

Science proceeds on the basis of building theories that contain falsifiable knowledge claims and these knowledge claims are tested emprically. You cannot prove an entire theory, you can only derive testable claims from a theory and ultimately reject theories that produce too many falsified knowledge claims.

BTW: You don't throw out a theory as soon as you get an unexpected empirical result (more about that in a minute).

Any number of climate change knowledge claims are testable and falsifiable. I would suggest that the vast bulk of conventional climate scientists are out there diligently testing the theories week in week out.

Most of the climate change skeptics, however, seem to concentrate their efforts very strongly on trying to punch holes in other peoples' work - seeking out unexpected empirical findings and flawed studies, then arguing that ANY unexpected findings or flawed studies bring down the entire edifice of conventional climate change science.


ajfclark
3/03/2011
3:12:01 PM
On 3/03/2011 billk wrote:
>"The oceans provide an absolutely enormous sink for carbon dioxide. They will soak up anything we put into the atmosphere."

Isn't that causing the acidity of the sea to rise?
maxdacat
3/03/2011
3:24:49 PM
Good reply....and i think we could all do well to understand what the science involved is, and it's interesting you talk about individual scientists testing falsifiable theories. It would be good to hear more about things going on at this level instead of blanket statements like we are going to experience (or indeed are currently experiencing) "more extreme weather". Naturally anything can be made to fit such a claim, floods in Qld must be AGW....nothing happens then it's good luck.

Gavo
3/03/2011
3:27:07 PM
On 3/03/2011 ajfclark wrote:
>On 3/03/2011 billk wrote:
>>"The oceans provide an absolutely enormous sink for carbon dioxide. They
>will soak up anything we put into the atmosphere."
>
>Isn't that causing the acidity of the sea to rise?

Acidity and temperature rising in the oceans IS already taking place.

What kind of an argument is that correlation doesnt equal causation because we dont have a second planet with which to compare? We dont have another example of MANY things but they are still entirely true! Evolution in a biological organism for example.

Absolute nonsense. There is DIRECT correlation of MULTIPLE sample types which meet equivalent outcomes consistent with ANTHROGENIC causation and NON-CONSISTENT with ANY TYPE of natural cause.

We basically have shitloads of evidence precisely correlating human-derived outputs to warming-effects. There are no other options. Its us.

And for the record, I understand the scientific method quite well. Im a research scientist. It teaches you to accept something when it is staring you in the face. Yes it is falsifiable, but unless there are alien spaceships pumping excess CO2 into our atmosphere, or perhaps pushing us closer to the sun, its us.

Gavo
3/03/2011
3:29:43 PM
On 3/03/2011 maxdacat wrote:
>Good reply....and i think we could all do well to understand what the science
>involved is, and it's interesting you talk about individual scientists
>testing falsifiable theories. It would be good to hear more about things
>going on at this level instead of blanket statements like we are going
>to experience (or indeed are currently experiencing) "more extreme weather".
> Naturally anything can be made to fit such a claim, floods in Qld must
>be AGW....nothing happens then it's good luck.

Read the paper I posted as a good basis to start.

Also, research the scientists making claims against the warming. It will (and if it doesnt, it damnwell should) shock the pants off you.

evanbb
3/03/2011
3:30:56 PM
On 3/03/2011 maxdacat wrote:
>Good reply....and i think we could all do well to understand what the science
>involved is, and it's interesting you talk about individual scientists
>testing falsifiable theories. It would be good to hear more about things
>going on at this level instead of blanket statements like we are going
>to experience (or indeed are currently experiencing) "more extreme weather".
> Naturally anything can be made to fit such a claim, floods in Qld must
>be AGW....nothing happens then it's good luck.

If you want the deets, get your teeth into AR4 or something. There are bucket loads of reports available on the IPCC website.

 Page 3 of 6. Messages 1 to 20 | 21 to 40 | 41 to 60 | 61 to 80 | 81 to 100 | 101 to 111
There are 111 messages in this topic.

 

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

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 | 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