|
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by GarryP
(Post 8134861)
But they HAVEN'T been found falsifying data.
and two further shocking examples have now come to light from Australia and New Zealand. In each of these countries it has been possible for local scientists to compare the official temperature record with the original data on which it was supposedly based. In each case it is clear that the same trick has been played – to turn an essentially flat temperature chart into a graph which shows temperatures steadily rising. And in each case this manipulation was carried out under the influence of the CRU. |
Re: Global warming
http://hot-topic.co.nz/nz-sceptics-l...top-scientist/ http://www.niwa.co.nz/news-and-publi...mperature-rise As I said, the lie is going round the world (in this case to the telegraph) before the truth got its boots on. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Alfresco
(Post 8135586)
They are not obligated to have 'a theory that models reality more accurately', since they are not making a fresh claim. They are merely disputing the claim made by AGW proponents.
|
Re: Global warming
deleted.
|
Re: Global warming
As an earth scientist who has looked at the data, in particular the ice core data i can not find any evidence of man made global warming. I can also say that the majority of actual scientists i have spoken to also think there is no evidence. What people should ask when they see reports is who they are written by and what that persons role is. Many of the "scientists" that peddle this stuff are eactually social scientists and economists.
Most believe the climate is changing. However even this is far from certain. Remember we are dealing with a system that is 4.5 billion years old and we have data for maybe a hundred years and only good world wide data for the last 30. To model the earths entire weather systems on such a small data set is ludicrous. It is more likely that changes we see are not actual changes but more periodic swings. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by verystormy
(Post 8137335)
As an earth scientist who has looked at the data, in particular the ice core data i can not find any evidence of man made global warming. I can also say that the majority of actual scientists i have spoken to also think there is no evidence. What people should ask when they see reports is who they are written by and what that persons role is. Many of the "scientists" that peddle this stuff are eactually social scientists and economists.
Most believe the climate is changing. However even this is far from certain. Remember we are dealing with a system that is 4.5 billion years old and we have data for maybe a hundred years and only good world wide data for the last 30. To model the earths entire weather systems on such a small data set is ludicrous. It is more likely that changes we see are not actual changes but more periodic swings. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Cape Blue
(Post 8137400)
Do you think you are qualified and experienced enough to make that statement?
All a waste of time until the worlds worst polluters do something...USA,China,Russia,Japan,India. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by mindblower
(Post 8137406)
All a waste of time until the worlds worst polluters do something...USA,China,Russia,Japan,India.
The Australian share 1.8% isn't really of much consequence... |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by ABCDiamond
(Post 8137419)
When you look at it that way, with the share of the top 20 broken down as follows:
|
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Wol
(Post 8137484)
And the figures per capita?
|
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by verystormy
(Post 8137335)
As an earth scientist who has looked at the data, in particular the ice core data i can not find any evidence of man made global warming. I can also say that the majority of actual scientists i have spoken to also think there is no evidence. What people should ask when they see reports is who they are written by and what that persons role is. Many of the "scientists" that peddle this stuff are eactually social scientists and economists.
Most believe the climate is changing. However even this is far from certain. Remember we are dealing with a system that is 4.5 billion years old and we have data for maybe a hundred years and only good world wide data for the last 30. To model the earths entire weather systems on such a small data set is ludicrous. It is more likely that changes we see are not actual changes but more periodic swings. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Lord_Farquar
(Post 8137494)
Indeed. Those figures make it look like Australia doesn't pollute much. However, compare Brazil a country with a population in excess of 192 million and a land mass bigger than Australia and it doesn't quite so rosy.
|
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Lord_Farquar
(Post 8137494)
Indeed. Those figures make it look like Australia doesn't pollute much. However, compare Brazil a country with a population in excess of 192 million and a land mass bigger than Australia and it doesn't quite so rosy.
However, if US or China could reduce theirs by 7%, it would have the same effect. The question is; Why is the Australian pollution per capita so high ? If we had ten times the population, would it still be as high ? If the human population was just enough to produce the goods mined and exported for overseas use, how high would it be ? Anyone got those answers ? |
Re: Global warming
When I was at school being educated on the bronze age, god knows why, but anyway, tempratures at that time period were 2-3 degrees warmer than now. Also at some point, iceland was being farmed, something you can't do at the moment.
We tend to forget that our planet has had more global warmings and coolings than I've had hot dinners. Take a look at north Africa, largest desert in the world, used to be green rolling hills and forests, full of roming animals, but changed long before man influenced it. As for the ozone hole, how long has it been around? Nobody know's as we only (20yrs or so) had the technology to detect and monitor it, it may have been increasing/decreasing in size over the past millions of years, especially during large volcanic activity. Yes today's society has some influence upon this and the reason it's so in our faces with government research etc, is probably due to the extra taxes they can put on everyone for producing and using 'enviromentaly damaging products'. This warming phase was going to happen whether we were on this planet or not, it may have just been speeded up by .1% by our productivity. If you were to look at the UK region some 60 million years ago, it was a tropical place with palm like tree's and clear blue waters, and now:rofl: Sorry for my rant, I'm on my 2nd bottle of wine, and enviromentalist tend to have tunnel vision, and not a histolic view on our planet. We are scewing it, but are we really scewing it that quickly... I dont think so, we have and do cause problems and need to be cautious, especially on forest destruction and development. Well I have the twizzies as that 3 rd bottle is calling me.....hic John:confused: |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by ABCDiamond
(Post 8137856)
But if Australia removed 100% of all pollution, it would hardly change the world, reducing world pollution by just 1.8%.
However, if US or China could reduce theirs by 7%, it would have the same effect. The question is; Why is the Australian pollution per capita so high ? If we had ten times the population, would it still be as high ? If the human population was just enough to produce the goods mined and exported for overseas use, how high would it be ? Anyone got those answers ? Australian National Greenhouse Accounts, National Inventory by Economic Sector In summary, electricity production accounts for ~37% of CO2 emissions, is a ubiquitous input to many other sectors and is coal powered. ~10% of electricity is consumed in the production od alumina and aluminium, almost all for export. Forestry used to be a bigger emitter, agriculture is the second largest emitter. Compare to France which produces much electricity using nuclear fuel. Nuclear power was banned by the Commonwealth Labor Goverment in the 1970s. |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 3:09 pm. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.