Global Warming not eroding ice shocker

[smeariestbat]

I didn't say it did. You have just said that.

I said, "says the Australian."

Why do you raise this? Does the fact you are posting from Australia affect your attitude towards climate change?

why did you initially raise the point he was from Australia if you yourself admit it bears no significance to the topic?

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

I didn't say it did. You have just said that.

I said, "says the Australian."

Why do you raise this? Does the fact you are posting from Australia affect your attitude towards climate change?

My attitude comes from seeing people making money off the average person by scaremongering them with the age old the sky is falling cry.

Al Gore being a prime example of this.

I don't disagree with what a lot of scientists say, I just don't have to buy into anything that tries to make me pay more out of my pocket for laws or policies these peoples lobbying brings about.

 

[sydney]

humans are killing this planet ...slowly but surely , i dread to think what it will be like in a thousand years,the damage done over the last 150 years is undeniable ......barring a meteor strike causing a mass extinction poor old mother earth is fuct....imho.

 

[Husty]

Funny that we have a thread disproving 'green science' on exactly the same day that it was announced that Australia's climate for 2013 was 1.2C higher than the long-term average.

Australia's WEATHER in 2013 was above the 30 year average, important difference.

 

[Hamilton]

why did you initially raise the point he was from Australia if you yourself admit it bears no significance to the topic?

Oh, because I was interested in seeing what reaction it would bring. And because, there is a prevalent attitude in Australia that rejects climate change besmirching it as 'green science' and 'scaremongering' none of it which helps in debating an issue that is affecting our lives and will continue to do so.

 

[hybrid_x]

View attachment 49921

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Oh, because I was interested in seeing what reaction it would bring. And because, there is a prevalent attitude in Australia that rejects climate change besmirching it as 'green science' and 'scaremongering' none of it which helps in debating an issue that is affecting our lives and will continue to do so.

Well that's the issue isn't it. There's no debate allowed to be had.

All there is the agressive Greens type mentality that dictates to the rest that there is only one view point to be had and anyone who doesn't agree with them is a redneck, a capitalist or any other group of people they don't like.

 

[Billy the Fish]

humans are killing this planet ...slowly but surely , i dread to think what it will be like in a thousand years,the damage done over the last 150 years is undeniable ......barring a meteor strike causing a mass extinction poor old mother earth is fuct....imho.

Humans will be extinct long before the planet is. If I could somehow collect the winnings I'd bet all my money on us being long gone in 1000 years

 

[sydney]

Oh, because I was interested in seeing what reaction it would bring. And because, there is a prevalent attitude in Australia that rejects climate change besmirching it as 'green science' and 'scaremongering' none of it which helps in debating an issue that is affecting our lives and will continue to do so.

there isn't mate....at the end of the day it all comes down to money.....plenty of people are making a lot of money out of coal /gas / oil they are not going to be proactive in the climate change debate are they...? plenty of people are not earning a penny out of oil , gas etc.......they are the ones who are going to be a bit more vocal against fossil fuel use.....the whole situation is wubbish , millions of tonnes of carbon being released back into the atmosphere in a minute fraction of the time it took to be laid down and created......very short sighted , imho.

 

[Hamilton]

Well that's the issue isn't it. There's no debate allowed to be had.

All there is the agressive Greens type mentality that dictates to the rest that there is only one view point to be had and anyone who doesn't agree with them is a redneck, a capitalist or any other group of people they don't like.

There is a massive debate to be had. For a start, how do we kick start the process of generating clean energy. We can't do it using alternative energies alone, so where do we stand on carbon capture and nuclear energy. We'll know about the effects of carbon capture by 2017, so should we wait until then before doing anything? Or should we press ahead with investment nuclear?

There's a debate.

GM technology? We have to look at how we stop waste in the food chain in order to feed the people we have. We can wait to see the way GM affects us or press ahead and see huge savings in the way food is grown.

Population control.

How are we to reduce the rate at which the planet is growing?
How do we reduce our reliance on animal farming - we spend as much money and time feeding cows to make burgers as we spend on feeding people in the poorest countries on the planet?

Where do you want the debate to start?

You really want to waste time debating whether or not climate change is happening or whether it's just green science rubbish?

 

[ofco8]

At the end of the day, this. Whilst sea ice at the North Pole continues to decline, around Antarctica it is at an all time high and we have little understanding of why that is.

Doesn't mean we should abandon 'Green' science though, only an idiot would argue that it is a bad idea to continue to develop more efficient technologies for generating power, growing food and producing goods.

This is ok if it isn't costing to much money. All these subsidies are crippling individuals and businesses whist China and India prosper using coal etc..

 

[drew]

So one publication takes an anti global warming stance and picks one article to back it up. From the horses mouth and I don't see them saying that global warming has no effect.

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_releases/press_release.php?id=2452

Also, according to Nasa's website

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

There is a massive debate to be had. For a start, how do we kick start the process of generating clean energy. We can't do it using alternative energies alone, so where do we stand on carbon capture and nuclear energy. We'll know about the effects of carbon capture by 2017, so should we wait until then before doing anything? Or should we press ahead with investment nuclear?

There's a debate.

Here's part of the debate here. We have one of the worlds biggest deposits of uranium. Let's consider nucelar power then.

Greens: no way evil western imperialists we won't ever let you consider that, in fact close down all uranium mining while you're at it because we don't like it.

It's been cock blocked so well the average person I doubt has been asked would they support nuclear power as an option.

GM technology? We have to look at how we stop waste in the food chain in order to feed the people we have. We can wait to see the way GM affects us or press ahead and see huge savings in the way food is grown.

The problem with this kind of discussion is that in the places where food is really needed, there will be no such discussions on these matters.

Population control.

How are we to reduce the rate at which the planet is growing?
How do we reduce our reliance on animal farming - we spend as much money and time feeding cows to make burgers as we spend on feeding people in the poorest countries on the planet?

Where do you want the debate to start?

I'd like to deabte that if the world is becomming so over populated why so much money is spent on trying to cure every disease under the sun instead of using that money to feed those already here?

How is using scientific adavances to keep people living longer and longer lives helping with the problem of populations.

Do we accept our own mortality or do we keep pouring billions into trying to avoid death as long as possible. What are the implications to populations of finding a cure for cancer, aids etc

I ask those questions from a logical point of view, not an emotional one.

You really want to waste time debating whether or not climate change is happening or whether it's just green science rubbish?

I have no issue debating it. I just take issue when the debate instantly looks to start taxing people or forcing people to live a certain way just because others say they have to.

It's not about Green Science being rubbish, its about it being used to make money off people for me personally.

 

[Guinness Boy]

So one publication takes an anti global warming stance and picks one article to back it up.

A publication that's read and trusted online by the majority of good computer scientists and programmers that I've met and I've been in the industry 15 years.

From the horses mouth and I don't see them saying that global warming has no effect.

http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/press/press_releases/press_release.php?id=2452

Also, according to Nasa's website

Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

But we were also told that one of the most alarming results of this was the rapid melting of the ice caps. Which seems to have gone in to reverse.

 

[Norman Potting]

There is a massive debate to be had. For a start, how do we kick start the process of generating clean energy. We can't do it using alternative energies alone, so where do we stand on carbon capture and nuclear energy. We'll know about the effects of carbon capture by 2017, so should we wait until then before doing anything? Or should we press ahead with investment nuclear?

There's a debate.

GM technology? We have to look at how we stop waste in the food chain in order to feed the people we have. We can wait to see the way GM affects us or press ahead and see huge savings in the way food is grown.

Population control.

How are we to reduce the rate at which the planet is growing?
How do we reduce our reliance on animal farming - we spend as much money and time feeding cows to make burgers as we spend on feeding people in the poorest countries on the planet?

Where do you want the debate to start?

You really want to waste time debating whether or not climate change is happening or whether it's just green science rubbish?

I suspect that the vast majority are fully in favour of any measures to reduce Co2 emissions and virtually every other "Green " initiative provided it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever to their own lifestyle or pocket.

 

[Hamilton]

A publication that's read and trusted online by the majority of good computer scientists and programmers that I've met and I've been in the industry 15 years.



But we were also told that one of the most alarming results of this was the rapid melting of the ice caps. Which seems to have gone in to reverse.

The technology bits might be trusted by computer programmers, but I've a feeling the science bits of The Register are not trusted by scientists.

 

[Hamilton]

Here's part of the debate here. We have one of the worlds biggest deposits of uranium. Let's consider nucelar power then.

Greens: no way evil western imperialists we won't ever let you consider that, in fact close down all uranium mining while you're at it because we don't like it.

It's been cock blocked so well the average person I doubt has been asked would they support nuclear power as an option.



The problem with this kind of discussion is that in the places where food is really needed, there will be no such discussions on these matters.




I'd like to deabte that if the world is becomming so over populated why so much money is spent on trying to cure every disease under the sun instead of using that money to feed those already here?

How is using scientific adavances to keep people living longer and longer lives helping with the problem of populations.

Do we accept our own mortality or do we keep pouring billions into trying to avoid death as long as possible. What are the implications to populations of finding a cure for cancer, aids etc

I ask those questions from a logical point of view, not an emotional one.




I have no issue debating it. I just take issue when the debate instantly looks to start taxing people or forcing people to live a certain way just because others say they have to.

It's not about Green Science being rubbish, its about it being used to make money off people for me personally.

But that's it then. Wade in with these arguments. Don't question climate change - instead start asking these questions so we can do something about it.

 

[Bold Seagull]

A publication that's read and trusted online by the majority of good computer scientists and programmers that I've met and I've been in the industry 15 years.

But we were also told that one of the most alarming results of this was the rapid melting of the ice caps. Which seems to have gone in to reverse.

It's always going to be easier to disprove emerging theories, than prove the theories themselves. This has been true of science throughout the ages. Whether the earth was round, we rotated round the sun and not vice versa, the atom, germs etc. etc. etc.

You can bet your bottom dollar that the same people who are climate skeptics now, will be at the head of the lynch mobs when it's asked why we weren't warned of global catastrophe sooner.

Choose to ignore the science at your peril. A skeptic needs to prove nothing, all they have to do is discredit another theory.

What I really fail to get my head around, is forgetting climate change and all the consequences for a second, why wouldn't you want to use cleaner energy? Why wouldn't you want to recycle and reuse materials? Why wouldn't you want to insulate your home and make your energy use at a minimum? Why would we want to drive around in combustion engines for the next decades? These aren't really climate change issues, they are common sense issues.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

But that's it then. Wade in with these arguments. Don't question climate change - instead start asking these questions so we can do something about it.

Do you feel that if people have no interest in climate change they have the right to not be enganged in conversation and actions involving it?

If a carbon tax is put upon the population will it be more successful if it is made mandatory or as an opt in or out option?

I think if you force it upon people they will resent it. If you make it a descion based on conscience decision less people will oppose it.

 

[Tyrone Biggums]

Why would we want to drive around in combustion engines for the next decades?

Damn, I'd rather cruise around in a 69 Mustang fastback than a Prius.