Global Warming, maybe there is something to it?

Submitted: Monday, Nov 19, 2007 at 21:33
ThreadID: 51799 Views:3817 Replies:17 FollowUps:40
This Thread has been Archived
I'm 46, it is mid November in Melbourne and it is as hot as hell. It's been this way for days. I can't remeber it like this. We haven't turned the heater on for weeks, which is unusual in November.

40 degrees today and an overnight low of 25 is predicted. We only normally get it like this in February. I'm sweating on the back porch as I type this at 9.30pm (civilised time LOL).
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Willem - Monday, Nov 19, 2007 at 21:38

Monday, Nov 19, 2007 at 21:38
46...is that in degrees or age?......lol


Nah, I think we are just going through a weather cycle. Just like we have history repeating itself(because man always forgets the mistakes he makes) so do we have weather repeating itself. You have just forgotton when a November was as warm as this.

Cheers

AnswerID: 272613

Follow Up By: Member - Doug T (FNQ) - Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 08:55

Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 08:55
Willem
Next week he'll have his overcoat on and the bloody heater going......using extra power ...causing Climate change .
gift by Daughter

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 535946

Follow Up By: Member - JohnR (Vic)&Moses - Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 15:04

Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 15:04
yeh, I wouldn't mind going back to 46, overnight even. Just spend longer over my mistakes next time around.
0
FollowupID: 536012

Reply By: Middle Jeff - Monday, Nov 19, 2007 at 21:49

Monday, Nov 19, 2007 at 21:49
Hi Jimbo

In the news tonight they said in a big voice that it was the hottest November day and then in little voice, in four years. So maybe your memory is just not that good.

Have fun

Craig
AnswerID: 272616

Follow Up By: Member - John (Vic) - Monday, Nov 19, 2007 at 21:59

Monday, Nov 19, 2007 at 21:59
They said on the weather tonight that the hotest November day on record was back in 1896 or there abouts.
Well before the current claimed global warming issues caused the current temps???
VKS737 - Mobile 6352 (Selcall 6352)

Lifetime Member
My Profile  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 535880

Follow Up By: Gerhardp1 - Monday, Nov 19, 2007 at 23:35

Monday, Nov 19, 2007 at 23:35
Correct, the top temp back then was over 40.

Must have had a Global Warming issue back then as well........
0
FollowupID: 535908

Reply By: Kiwi & "Mahindra" - Monday, Nov 19, 2007 at 21:50

Monday, Nov 19, 2007 at 21:50
These sort of weather patterns happen with El Nina.....the end to El nino.....

Laura
AnswerID: 272617

Reply By: Member - Phil G (SA) - Monday, Nov 19, 2007 at 21:59

Monday, Nov 19, 2007 at 21:59
I moved to Adelaide in 1982 - reckon it was as hot as hell in summer that year. But the heat hasn't bothered me since.

Sure, the world is heating up, but there's nothing new about temperature changes. If its any consolation, Mars is heating up as well!
AnswerID: 272624

Follow Up By: Geoff (Newcastle, NSW) - Wednesday, Nov 21, 2007 at 09:01

Wednesday, Nov 21, 2007 at 09:01
Hi Phil,
That comment about Mars is an interesting one, I assume you are alluding to the well buried report by NASA that mentions the temperatures of Earth and Mars have both risen by exactly the same amount in the last 30 years.
Pity it's totally ignored in all the discussion on the "truth" about global warming. Might not be our responsibility 100%, heaven forbid their may be something natural going on to a certain extent!

I'd say Martian baked beans are totally responsible for the universe warming myself!

Geoff
Geoff,

Grey hair is hereditary, you get it from children. Baldness is caused by watching the Wallabies.

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 536210

Follow Up By: The Explorer - Thursday, Nov 22, 2007 at 17:23

Thursday, Nov 22, 2007 at 17:23
This is where these threads get confusing - some people say the climate is changing others say its not and then some people say OK its changing but its natural and nothing to do with mankinds activities. So Two questions get mixed up together and it becomes unclear as to what people are agreeing or not agreeing to. There are two questions 1. Is the climate changing. 2. What is the cause.

I dont think there is any doubt about question 1. Evidence shows changes in rainfall and temperature patterns world wide. It has changed before many times so no real surprise it is now. Is the cause natural or man made? - in my opinion a combination of both - it is changing a bit fast to be considered natural and I just can not see how changing the composition of the earths atmosphere and chopping down vast areas of forest will have no effect at all.

Cheers
Greg
I sent one final shout after him to stick to the track, to which he replied “All right,” That was the last ever seen of Gibson - E Giles 23 April 1874

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message
Moderator

0
FollowupID: 536499

Reply By: Member - Clive G (NZ) - Monday, Nov 19, 2007 at 22:04

Monday, Nov 19, 2007 at 22:04
I'm 63, it's mid November in Hamilton NZ at 12midnight (civilised time) and it's just right. It's been this way for several days.

22dg today and 12 overnight. This exactly std for this time of year.

Global Warming? utter rubbish.
Climate Change? well maybe.

CliveG NZ
AnswerID: 272626

Follow Up By: Member - Kiwi Kia - Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 07:32

Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 07:32
It's always changeing Clive, happens evry 10,000 years or so :-)). I'm in Wellington today and its great weather here to.
0
FollowupID: 535931

Follow Up By: Nick R (VIC) - Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 09:39

Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 09:39
Hey Bro
I've been to Wellington, "sweet as" weather is when it gets above 10 degrees and the wind below 50 knots isn't it???

Nick
Carpe Cerevisi

Lifetime Member
My Profile  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 535965

Follow Up By: Member - Kiwi Kia - Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 10:03

Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 10:03
Hey Nick, You spend good money for rides at Disney or Movie world that we get for free flying into Wellington :-))
I love piloting into Wellington - keeps the skill levels up.
0
FollowupID: 535971

Reply By: Member - Doug T (FNQ) - Monday, Nov 19, 2007 at 23:50

Monday, Nov 19, 2007 at 23:50
Jimbo
I don't have time for all this political crap going on , I can remember my Parents talking about a heat wave in Adelaide in about 1938 at 117deg , To think that us Microscopic Humans can cause the planet to change is stupidity, Yes we are microscopic compared to the rest of the universe, I also remember Mum saying about the Atom bomb tests , "They will blow the world up" She had no idea of the force of one 10 Klm wide Meteor back then and what forces it and destruction it caused, even the worlds Volcanoes are spewing much more into the atmosphere than humans will in 100s years .

Reason 1 / Vredefort Dome, approximately 120 km south-west of Johannesburg, is a representative part of a larger meteorite impact structure, or astrobleme. Dating back 2,023 million years, it is the oldest astrobleme yet found on Earth. With a radius of 190 km, it is also the largest and the most deeply eroded. Vredefort Dome bears witness to the world’s greatest known single energy release event, which had devastating global effects including, according to some scientists, major evolutionary changes. It provides critical evidence of the Earth’s geological history and is crucial to understanding of the evolution of the planet. Despite the importance of impact sites to the planet’s history, geological activity on the Earth’s surface has led to the disappearance of evidence from most of them, and Vredefort is the only example to provide a full geological profile of an astrobleme below the crater floor.

Reaso 2 / Manicouagan

Reason 3 Chicxulub Effects/

.
gift by Daughter

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

AnswerID: 272652

Reply By: Footloose - Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 01:06

Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 01:06
Is it or isn't it ?
I look at it this way.
Lets suppose it isn't, and we clean the planet up a bit. The result is we have a better place to leave behind.
Now lets suppose it is, and we do nothing. The results COULD be catastrophic for many (according to the UN report).
So what to do?
I have insurance on my vehicle, even though I have no plans to have an accident.
I rekkon that the planet "cleaning up it's act " might be good insurance.
AnswerID: 272660

Follow Up By: Member - Doug T (FNQ) - Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 09:01

Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 09:01
Footloose
G'day mate, the Earth is more than capable of looking after itself , Man cannot control the earth and the weather , long after we have rotted and decayed the earth will be fine, or didn't you read my post above ,

Doug
gift by Daughter

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 535949

Follow Up By: Footloose - Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 09:52

Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 09:52
G'Day Doug. Yes I did, and with a slight background in this crap, I'm still sceptical of both sides and the politics involved.
0
FollowupID: 535969

Follow Up By: Member - JohnR (Vic)&Moses - Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 15:40

Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 15:40
F'loosie, I think your insurance proposal is right actually. We shouldn't be doing too much damage to the globe and now with the 6 billion close neighbours all clammoring for the same resources we are, the crowd is doing more damage.

I agree in a small part with Doug about the changes that have gone on for years, even billions of years. Even that volcanoes have had a small part to play, but in micro-climate terms. Australia had a cool summer years ago after one of the Indonesian volcanoes blew it's top. Jet aircraft had to divert because of of the dust plume. That was micro though, but scientists have plotted volcanic activity with cycles of cooling some times.

There is no doubt there has been heaps of political argie-bargie on the issue of the Kyoto agreement. The Ruddites have at last recognised though, that they have no place being a plan without the major polluters in the developing nations, China and India. If Australia was to stop using the fossil fuels we do, the market wouldn't notice.

The whole global community does need to spread it's energy away from fossil to other base load capacity systems. Really, watching a solar output today and wind around our district there is a lot of "opportunity" capacity only. The Geothermal systems are just developing in Australia and troubled by the heat of our rocks. Some are troubled by nuclear scare campaigns but the same people travel overseas to places like France and the UK where there is massive nuclear capacity in the power grid.

Australia is listed as a major greenhouse polluter as we service the global aluminium capacity as well as many of the other capacities and of course - the Victorian dirty brown coal power infrastructure, and other states coal powered systems.

The global output of pollution has and is continuing to rise, even in Australia, we hardly see it. Chickens, we are being warned will come home to roost. How much we can influence the return of ice sheets, only history will tell. The Ruddites aren't showing they have the capacity to change the directiion at this stage.
0
FollowupID: 536013

Follow Up By: Member - JohnR (Vic)&Moses - Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 15:41

Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 15:41
F'loosie, I think your insurance proposal is right actually. We shouldn't be doing too much damage to the globe and now with the 6 billion close neighbours all clammoring for the same resources we are, the crowd is doing more damage.

I agree in a small part with Doug about the changes that have gone on for years, even billions of years. Even that volcanoes have had a small part to play, but in micro-climate terms. Australia had a cool summer years ago after one of the Indonesian volcanoes blew it's top. Jet aircraft had to divert because of of the dust plume. That was micro though, but scientists have plotted volcanic activity with cycles of cooling some times.

There is no doubt there has been heaps of political argie-bargie on the issue of the Kyoto agreement. The Ruddites have at last recognised though, that they have no place being a plan without the major polluters in the developing nations, China and India. If Australia was to stop using the fossil fuels we do, the market wouldn't notice.

The whole global community does need to spread it's energy away from fossil to other base load capacity systems. Really, watching a solar output today and wind around our district there is a lot of "opportunity" capacity only. The Geothermal systems are just developing in Australia and troubled by the heat of our rocks. Some are troubled by nuclear scare campaigns but the same people travel overseas to places like France and the UK where there is massive nuclear capacity in the power grid.

Australia is listed as a major greenhouse polluter as we service the global aluminium capacity as well as many of the other capacities and of course - the Victorian dirty brown coal power infrastructure, and other states coal powered systems.

The global output of pollution has and is continuing to rise, even in Australia, we hardly see it. Chickens, we are being warned will come home to roost. How much we can influence the return of ice sheets, only history will tell. The Ruddites aren't showing they have the capacity to change the directiion at this stage.
0
FollowupID: 536014

Reply By: Member - Barnesy (SA) - Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 01:46

Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 01:46
Marble Bar in WA is the hottest town in Oz. Something like 120 consecutive days over 38 degrees in the 1930's. Today it was 46 degrees!

How many of the polar icecaps were melting in the 1930's? Were the oceans becoming acidic in the 30's like they are now? The answer to both is no.
AnswerID: 272664

Follow Up By: QLD Kev & Darkie - Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 06:18

Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 06:18
Who would accurately know how many polar ice caps were melting in the 1930's??

It has only been since they have become more involved with things that they have made such statements. Ice caps have always been melting at what rate who can accurately know.

Cheers Kev
Russell Coight:
He was presented with a difficult decision: push on into the stretching deserts, or return home to his wife.

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 535922

Follow Up By: Member - Kiwi Kia - Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 07:38

Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 07:38
Barnsey, you need a lesson in geology and how continental drif effects the worlds climate. There is evidence of glaciers where I am at present and we now have several cities here thanks to global warming. The 1930's were only yesterday in the earths calendar. Mid 1800's the Thames river in London used to be often frozen so thick you could drive a horse and cart over it in the winter.
0
FollowupID: 535932

Follow Up By: Member - Doug T (FNQ) - Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 09:07

Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 09:07
Barnesy
Sorry mate .... your wrong, Cloncurry holds the record for the hottest town , do your research first,
Yes Marble Bar had the longest consecutive days over 100deg, they were not using Celsius then.


.
gift by Daughter

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 535950

Follow Up By: Member - Doug T (FNQ) - Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 10:31

Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 10:31
Kiwi Kia
Your answer FollowUp 2 of 3 is perfectly correct.
The advocates of climate change do not want to know the truths and facts , if they do they won't have a cause in life to go around making bloody pests of themselves at demonstrations , the Pollies won't have a subject to add as a policy and waste billions of dollars of tax payers money chasing a dream to make them selves look good in the eyes and minds of a population of people who are being told furphy's , they only see what they want to see,
One volcanoe can put out as much co2 as we put out in 10 years, from one erruption. the earth has a lot of erruptions from volcanoes. under water and above.

Volcanic Gases and Their Effects


.
gift by Daughter

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 535975

Follow Up By: Member - Davoe (Yalgoo) - Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 16:55

Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 16:55
Averadge summer temp
cloncurry
oct-36.2
nov-37.8
dec-38.7
jan-36.5
feb-36.3
march-35.9

Old mate from marble bar would be wearing a jumper with an averadge over summer of
oct-37.6
nov-40.5
dec-41.6
jan-41.0
feb-39.8
march-39.0
0
FollowupID: 536020

Reply By: Robin Miller - Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 08:30

Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 08:30
Hi Jimbo

Sure is a warm for november but we can't use the odd record temperatures etc to draw conclusions.

Human beings have evolved to fundamently be short term thinkers but at least this year the scientific world bodies have made the definative statements so we can now set about fixing
things up even though it will come to late for some.

There will always be those who still think the earth is flat, cigarettes won't hurt you or their car gets this incredible mileage.

We have an massive inbuilt tendency to be much more critical of messages that we dont like or don't wish to hear.

I think an effective approach to these things is to be aware that you can influence your local enviroment and make a local situation better no matter what the subject.

E.G. Using loss of tracks as an example, knowledge , using the law, and a few discreet changes can ensure you have a lot more acessible forrest than otherwise.

Robin Miller
AnswerID: 272683

Reply By: Snowy 3.0iTD - Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 08:53

Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 08:53
Global warming is one part of the equation that worries me, but there is a side to it that scares me even more; PEAK OIL. Do an internet search, have a read, have a think about how much modern society relies on oil, then about what might happen as it gets more and more expensive before vritually running out. You can hope that the government may be forward thinking, but they were warned about climate change more than ten years ago and are still just talking. Five years or ten, who knows but a Mad Max reality may not be too far away.

Snowy
AnswerID: 272686

Reply By: Robnicko - Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 09:12

Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 09:12
Jimbo,
I agree with Willem in that we are going through a cycle. It was reported last night on the news that back in 1890 (I think) we had similar temperatures in Melbourne. Remember last Christmas? I had my woodfire going all day and then a couple of days later was swimming in the Howqua river.........

Rob
AnswerID: 272694

Reply By: Member - Kiwi Kia - Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 10:00

Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 10:00
For all the rabid greenies (I like to mild manered greenies :-))

The Ozone hole - shock horror - we have to fix it quick. But guess what ? Ozone is a greenhouse gas ! The more ozone we have the more we heat the planet !
AnswerID: 272697

Reply By: The Explorer - Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 10:18

Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 10:18
Hello - here we go again...one off hot days (or cold days) can not be used as an argument for or against climate change. It may well have been that hot many times in the past - but that is actually irrelevant - its more to do with the frequency of the highest/coldest temps, rainfall etc - i.e. average over set period of time. e.g. The maximum temp in the Artic may never reach historical maximums.....but if it is, say 25°C all year round then we have a slight issue.

Cheers
Greg
I sent one final shout after him to stick to the track, to which he replied “All right,” That was the last ever seen of Gibson - E Giles 23 April 1874

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message
Moderator

AnswerID: 272698

Reply By: mfewster - Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 12:02

Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 12:02
I am forever amazed by the comfort some people have in the fact that we have had climate cycles before so this is just another cycle so what are we worrying about. These believers clearly have only had a very superficial look at the arguments. Bit like the anti evolutionists who will cling grimly to their denial of the evidence no matter what. The argument has almost nothing to do with whether or not we have had climate cycles before. The scientists whose research has led to the current concern base their findings on understanding previous cycles, not denying they existed. What is different about this cycle is the speed at which it is happening. Yes, we have had very fast cycle changes in the past but these were caused by some kind of major trauma, like meteorite impact or huge volcanic eruption. The results were massive species extinction, a very long recovery period and major change of life forms. This time, the only trauma event is us and the rate we are releasing energy into ecosystem. Our species and lifestyle has evolved in a particular climate window. Changing climate significantly and quickly will be disastrous for our species/lifestyle.
AnswerID: 272708

Follow Up By: Member - Barnesy (SA) - Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 13:57

Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 13:57
Recently the IPCC have said they can prove to 90% accuracy current fast climate change is caused by human activity. I suspect they know what the remaining 10% is but just can't prove it scientifically.

Even still I'd rather put my money on a 90% chance of success.
0
FollowupID: 536005

Follow Up By: Rock Ape - Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 16:15

Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 16:15
Barnesy, I can't say who told me this cause there is an election on next Saturday. When I asked him is there global waming caused by us, his reply was an emphatic YES!!!!!!!!!

He isn't labour or green, so you guess what major party is left.
0
FollowupID: 536016

Follow Up By: Member - Kiwi Kia - Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 21:17

Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 21:17
Barnesy, 90% accuracy hahaha, yeah right, and the moon is made of green cheese !

The earth will be hit by a major asteroid some time in the future. Now that's a statement with 100% accuracy.

Consider this, if you put fertiliser on a grass paddock it enhances plant growth and the plant thrives and consumes the 'fertiliser'. Similarly small animals that live near the surface of the sea thrive and multiply when they absorb CO2 in sea water at the air/sea interface. These little animals consume the CO2 and build their skeletons. When they die they drift down to the sea floor which, if above the lysocline, becomes a lime rich sediment which when compacted becomes limestone. Every wondered where the mega mega tons of limestone came from ? An extremely rich CO2 atmosphere with warm seas many long years ago. The more CO2 in the atmosphere the more these little animals will grow and absorb it - isn't nature wonderful ! Sure there will be a lag in the build-up of CO2 and the absorbstion mechanism taking care of it but give it time, give it time - no need to worry for the next 10,000 years.

0
FollowupID: 536122

Follow Up By: Member - Barnesy (SA) - Wednesday, Nov 21, 2007 at 00:04

Wednesday, Nov 21, 2007 at 00:04
Kiwi, I still don't know how to answer your replies. Did you read what MFewster wrote?

Do you work for Exxon-Mobil?
0
FollowupID: 536173

Reply By: Rock Ape - Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 13:00

Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 13:00
Well!!!! I didn't realise there were so many learned people on a 4wd site, knowing all about the pros and cons of global warming.

Good skills, just shows what a dipstick I am.

Just think about this, wasn't many years ago there was a flotilla of doctors and scientists that could prove smoking didn't harm anyone
AnswerID: 272714

Follow Up By: Member - Barnesy (SA) - Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 13:52

Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 13:52
This argument has been around on this forum for a while now. It always seems to be the same people. Somebody starts a thread saying how they don't believe it (or vice versa), then the same people come on and put forward the same arguments.

I still can't follow where volcanoes fit into the current climate change happenings. One member seems adamant about volcanoes.

Another person always comes on with some intelligent responses that seems to go straight over the top of many people's heads (but don't stop writing them please I enjoy reading them).

Cigarette companies have known since the 1950's the harm they caused people. It takes a long time for things to change when there is resistance from the top (thankfully this resistance is fading fast).
0
FollowupID: 536001

Follow Up By: Willem - Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 21:03

Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 21:03
Barnesy

I do hope you include yourself in the 'same people' comment.....hahahahahahaha
0
FollowupID: 536107

Follow Up By: Member - Barnesy (SA) - Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 23:54

Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 23:54
Yes Willem I am the same person with the same arguments. I try to point to different facts and points of view with each posting and one thing it does do is make me read a bit more. And the more I read the more my argument is validated. Also the more others who are sceptical are negated.

Barnesy
0
FollowupID: 536171

Follow Up By: Willem - Wednesday, Nov 21, 2007 at 07:31

Wednesday, Nov 21, 2007 at 07:31
Its a bit like religion, Barnesy

True believers and non believers

Just as well we are all different because if we had consensus on everything the world will be rather dull.

Cheers
0
FollowupID: 536189

Follow Up By: Member - Barnesy (SA) - Wednesday, Nov 21, 2007 at 13:59

Wednesday, Nov 21, 2007 at 13:59
Sorry Willem i don't think this is anything like religion. Religions ask for faith. Climate change asks for facts.

It is more like the smoking lobby than faith, with old entrenched view points, a reluctance to change and powerful people with vested interests spreading doubt and misinformation.

Barnesy
0
FollowupID: 536262

Follow Up By: Willem - Wednesday, Nov 21, 2007 at 14:18

Wednesday, Nov 21, 2007 at 14:18
Or people with vested interests spreading the word according to their agenda

Still, you must have faith in your own convictions to believe what your research leads you to believe. So whats the difference between that and religion?



0
FollowupID: 536268

Follow Up By: Member - Barnesy (SA) - Wednesday, Nov 21, 2007 at 22:54

Wednesday, Nov 21, 2007 at 22:54
Science and religion are completely different. Science looks for facts, trends and the conclusions that can be drawn from those facts. If something can't be proven with facts, or direct recordable observations then it isn't science.

Religion asks you to believe in a being that can't be seen. The only experience of which comes from a subjective experience within each person.

Scientifically the bible would get ripped apart. For starters a baby can't be born to a virgin. Secondly if someone was dead for 4 days they can't come back to life. Third, one man can't make a whole sea move aside so he can cross it.

BUT that's what people believe and it's better for science not to look too deeply into religious beliefs. I like these religious stories but to call them scientific is wrong.

Barnesy
0
FollowupID: 536359

Follow Up By: Willem - Wednesday, Nov 21, 2007 at 23:23

Wednesday, Nov 21, 2007 at 23:23
You have missed the point entirely

Religion is blind faith
Science can also be blind faith. Most of the time science is only theory but many writings as well as media hype want to put it in the 'for real' category.

Don't take myself and others who disagree with you to task. You put forward your motion and others may put in a counter thought.

That is the way the life works.
0
FollowupID: 536368

Follow Up By: Member - Barnesy (SA) - Thursday, Nov 22, 2007 at 01:59

Thursday, Nov 22, 2007 at 01:59
Current climate change science is not blind faith. The IPCC state they can prove it scientifically with 90% accuracy. Believing what they release is trust and respect, not blind faith.

The IPCC reports i have read have proven true except for one thing, the rate they predicted change to happen is occuring a lot faster. I trust what they publish.

0
FollowupID: 536380

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Thursday, Nov 22, 2007 at 08:17

Thursday, Nov 22, 2007 at 08:17
"Science can also be blind faith. "

Hi Willem

Science can't be called blind faith by definition

0
FollowupID: 536407

Follow Up By: Gramps (NSW) - Thursday, Nov 22, 2007 at 08:36

Thursday, Nov 22, 2007 at 08:36
Barnesy,

"For starters a baby can't be born to a virgin" - WRONG. Science says it can LOL

0
FollowupID: 536409

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Thursday, Nov 22, 2007 at 09:13

Thursday, Nov 22, 2007 at 09:13
SHH !

Don't tell anyone Gramps - the women might find out and think that they don't need us.

0
FollowupID: 536412

Follow Up By: Willem - Thursday, Nov 22, 2007 at 10:33

Thursday, Nov 22, 2007 at 10:33
Robin, Barnesy et al,

'Science can't be called blind faith by definition'


Read between the lines

Blind faith of all that is published under the guise of scientific research and so called facts.
0
FollowupID: 536421

Follow Up By: Robin Miller - Thursday, Nov 22, 2007 at 10:47

Thursday, Nov 22, 2007 at 10:47
"Blind faith of all that is published under the guise of scientific research and so called facts."

Thats an opinion Willem

You will need to call apon the scientific process to give it any legs.

Robin Miller
0
FollowupID: 536425

Follow Up By: Willem - Thursday, Nov 22, 2007 at 11:59

Thursday, Nov 22, 2007 at 11:59
Now yer getting the drift, Robin

It is an opinion. MY opinion.

Because we are bombarded by scientific evidence on a front of topics, by the media, I have grown wary and look upon a lot of scientific claims with scepticism.

Geez, you blokes are full of it.

Just believe me when I state I don't believe that Global Warming is what it is made out to be!!!!!

Thats MY OPINION!!!

Enough said.
0
FollowupID: 536430

Follow Up By: Gramps (NSW) - Thursday, Nov 22, 2007 at 16:31

Thursday, Nov 22, 2007 at 16:31
Robin,

LOL better keep it between us then. It just proved something I've suspected for a long while re Barnesy.

0
FollowupID: 536491

Reply By: Camoco - Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 14:52

Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 14:52
OK I'll wade into the debate.

I firmly believe the current issue of climate change is politically driven as a method for control. Remember the "New World Order". They haven't really gone away, just changed clothes.

That said, I think man has done much damage throughout history for us to notice but in the whole scheme of things they are not life threatening to the planet or it's inhabitants in general. We have killed off various species of plants and animals and polluted like there was no tomorrow.

I still do not believe that our normal actions of today will be the killer of us and our future generations.

However, we should be more kinder to our planet and to those of us who share it. We should employ best practices to clean our emissions from our productivity (commercially and privately) and make the world a better cleaner place to live. Some of us like to live in what others think is garbage and those possibly couldn't handle the clinical environment the others live in.

We should try to leave this world a better place, but to think we have only "X" years before the planet is stuffed is nonsense.

To think politics can fix the problem in a 4 year term is a joke when they can't even get our roads fixed. They have spruiked "vote for me and we will fix the environment and reverse climate change" or words to that effect. Do they really think their policies are that effective?

We do have real problems with society though, and that should be where the megabucks should be spent so we can be a peaceful race and can think happy thoughts and live in harmony with nature. Get our kids to be more responsible and respectful, and we may achieve the Utopian result by mistake:)

I advocate getting around OZ as much as possible to see the beauty of this land even if it means burning fuel, wearing out rubber, creating landfill, and wearing the tracks away. What's the point of having a beautiful earth if no one enjoys it? It's a bit too far to walk.

PS where I am today it is remarkably cooler than normal. And in the words of agent 86 .... "and loving it".
AnswerID: 272729

Follow Up By: Member - DAZA (QLD) - Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 18:21

Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 18:21
Na you are all wrong, its the sheep in Kiwi Land, thats causing all the
green house gas.

Cheers
Daza
0
FollowupID: 536043

Reply By: Ianw - Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 22:34

Tuesday, Nov 20, 2007 at 22:34
If you really want to know the truth, here is a site that will keep you reading till the cows come home.
Ian

Climate change research
AnswerID: 272849

Follow Up By: mfewster - Wednesday, Nov 21, 2007 at 12:50

Wednesday, Nov 21, 2007 at 12:50
I just had to have a look. Some observations about the site. Anything that features James Bignell is sus. Bignell has been around for years and writes on all sorts of subjects and is a bit of a joke in science circles. A good example of the dangers of giving Professorships on life tenure
Robert Carter's work features prominently on the site and he is indeed a reputable scientist based at James Cook University in Qld and in a field relevant to the study. It's worth looking more at his arguments though. While he doesn't think it can be proved that global warming is a result of human activity, he agrees that it is happening, and that the results are going to be significant and that we need to be preparing for the results now. This puts him in line with the Australian National Farmer's Federation, not exactly rabid enviro extremists. Interesting that farmers are increasingly lining up with Greenie policies in terms of the the sorts of planning and actions we need to be taking. Most anti warming followers find this hard to believe, so you might refer to a press release today from the National Farmers Federation on the subject
http://www.theage.com.au/news/federal-election-2007-news/farmers-lash-coalition-for-lack-of-vision/2007/11/13/1194766676732.html
If you accept Robert Carter's work, then you can't ignore the importance of global warming (which the site you gave us does) you have to take on the rest of his message and decide what policies you are going to support to do something about it.
0
FollowupID: 536251

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (9)