Now where have I hear this before?

Gidday

I think you need a cup of tea and a bit of a sleep.....!

Regards

Kim

All the sheep and cattle in Australia are producing more damaging greenhouse gasses than ALL the cars trucks and trains in Australia - and that's a fact available on the government website.

So if we converted EVERY form of transport to hydrogen or nuclear power, we would only have halved the emissions.

Eat fish or poultry or go vegetarian.

Kim, I took your advice and had a cup of tea and a good sleep. When I awoke I remembered that a person of some learning once said that 70% of the Earth is covered in water and that you could take Mount Everest and drop it in the deep Mariana Trench in the Pacific and it would not raise the depth of the Pacific by an inch.
Thank you for your concerns. I am very pleased to accept your help.
By the by, I had a peek at the Bible and found that some bloke built an Ark to sail around in the floods. The weather is cyclic, my friend, same as the Earth revolving in it's arc around the sun causes daylight and dark. Nothing to do with cars, aeroplanes or even sheep farting. There is nothing like a bigot or someone looking for fame.
We do not have to emulate them.
Have a nice day. The tea was nice and so was the sleep.
Kind regards
Brian

" had a peek at the Bible and found that some bloke built an Ark to sail around in the floods"

OK. Now that we understand your approach to establishing knowledge, we know how much time to spend on replies.

That is so right. Be selective. You read and understood about Noah (full marks!) but missed the scientific evidence. You could, perhaps, buy a good atlas and read the words as well as look at the pictures.
Perhaps you could go a little further and do some study on geology. Very informative.
You may also scan the net and find that there are a number of eminent scholars who debunk global warning.
Have a good week Mike and maybe in your busy schedule you could learn something from sourses apart from the local newspapers. Please leave Mr. Rudd alone.
Kind regards
Brian

Which eminent scholars do you mean? I had a look and one of them also believes the world is only 6000 years old and man and dinosaurs walked the earth together.
Im assuming the dinos died in the great flood sent by skyfairy to punish the bad people

Pick a hypothesis, any hypothesis, and you're sure to find an academic or two somewhere in the world who'll support - or more likely an author of a book that sells well.

It's known as "publish or perish".

I agree wholeheartedly.
Global warming is a prime example.
We still have floods and heat waves same as 60 years ago. And probably again in your lifetime and mine.
Brian

The media beats this up. You will not notice any extra warming,cooling or any other effects on a day to day basis,its the averages over much longer periods to watch out for.

But Ross, I thought you said the 'warming' was happening so quickly?

Oh golly gosh. Global warming is upon us. It has just snowed in Texas for the first time in over twenty years (20) years.
Global warming my foot. Amunsden sailed through the North-West Passage a hundred years ago. It froze up again and was not traversed until the ninteenforties then it froze again.
Global warming my foot!!!!

Well Timbo,time is only relevant to your viewpoint.
From a scientific view stretching over periods of millenia,a few decades flashes by.
But on a human scale,I doubt anyone will notice an average increase of 1c every 10 years.

Well Ross, how can anyone possibly think that the evidence on a 'warming trend' is conclusive then?! Accurate temperature records have been kept for scarcely more than the past 100 years - considering this in the context of your alleged 700 million years and it is absurd to declare that 'a long-term warming trend has been observed'!

You might also consider how accurate are the records that we have anyway given that many of the temperature loggers have been 'built-in' by expanding urban areas - a warming trend could only be expected in the global average given the thermal mass of urban areas which now surround some of the recording devices that provide data to obtain the average temperatures.

Who said 700 million years. I said millenia which is a thousand years.

There are other indicators which give an approximate temperautre reading.
Studied over a long period ,warming or cooling trends can be detected.

AFAIK temps are taken away from urban areas,the scientists don't get it off the channel 7 news and weather

Ross,

Here's a temperature reconstruction for the last 2000 years.

Image Could Not Be Found

The full report can be downloaded here:

Global temperature reconstruction

While were on temperature, here's a graph from Fig. 9.12 from the UN IPCC Fourth Annual Report, showing temp trends for Darwin:

Image Could Not Be Found

Here's the original data that they started with:

Image Could Not Be Found

Don't look very much alike do they?

Graeme

Having looked at the last two closely, they look almost identical to me Graham. They are using a different vertical/horizontal scale and they nave made it easier to read by smoothing out some of the points, but essentially, the info is the same.
The first graph, if one reads the attached paper, is highly speculative, but interesting. It is made to look more dramatic by the vertical scale applied, which has exagerated the movement. While the figures pre around 1800 are speculative and are more a commentary on issues of the tree ring analysis method, the graph certainly shows significant temperature increase in the "modern " period where actual readings are available to confirm the speculative tree ring discussion. I'd suggest that those graphs support the climate change case.

Sorry Ross, I was referring to what I thought you understood to be the age of the earth. Studying the temperature over 100 years or so in the context of ~700 million years and saying that you've observed a trend would be like studying the temperature for a couple of seconds and saying that you've observed a trend for the whole year!

"AFAIK temps are taken away from urban areas" Yes, but some of these stations are not as far from urban areas as they used to be. And if you want to accurately record temperature change, you can't just relocate them and continue the same data set.

"the scientists don't get it off the channel 7 news and weather" :-) LOL!

Mfewster (and Graeme), I won't comment on the first graph (2000 years) because I suspect it is very speculative (as Mfewster says) but one significant thing about the 2nd and 3rd graphs concerns where they start. The raw data shows high temperatures in the 1880's and 1890's (higher than those in the 1980's, 1990's and 2000's) but for 'some' reason, these are omitted from the colourful graph which starts around 1910 (at the end of a cooling period)... hmmm.

I posted a reply, but the website ate it.

I don't agree with Mfewster that the last two support "the climate change case" ( I assume you mean global warming or are you saying that any change supports the theory?)

My problem with most of the temps quoted is that the raw data is always adjusted. These adjustments are always up. Why is that?

Tree ring data is accepted as accurate up to 1960, but not afterwards. Again, if it's good enough up to 1960, why is it not good enough post 1960? Who's to say it's accurate at all? The problem is, after 1960, the tree ring data apparently doesn't match the theory. Funny how it's ignored after 1960, but accepted before!

Graeme

Agree with Graeme.
Because after 1960 they could confirm the accuracy (or lack there of) of the tree ring data method by direct comparison to the instrument analysis also available after that date.

Why its ignored is the tree ring results pre 1960 are also overstated and the comparison data post 1960 confirms the method is not accurate so they conveniently leave it out.
Just one other fact that confirms the IPCC data is tainted and cannot be relied upon.

And we had frequent cyclone warnings in Brisbane throughout the '70's.

The Sunspot Cycle is 11 years - there's no controversy about that.

We are the bottom of a cycle at the moment and there is consternation about the delay in the start of the next cycle.

Did we cause that too????

No, it was the penguins... think about it:
Where was the 'hole' in the ozone layer observed? If it was really caused by man and his CFC's, why is the 'hole' over the continent with the smallest human population, that has no need for fridges, air conditioners and probably the lowest aerosol usage in the world?! :)
And to use the argument often used by lobbyists in Australia: the penguins should be at the forefront of tackling climate change since they are the ones who will be most affected by it!

Gidday John


Never thought of that mate. By cripes I'll have to settle down...

LOL

Regards

Kim

Just a thought..............

I breathe, thereby emitting carbon dioxide.
Will these new carbon taxes be proportionate to the amount I exhale???

I'm thinking of up yoga and meditation to slow my breathing rate down.
LOL:)

Don't let the history of the past put people out of work either:Image Could Not Be Found

Jim
My youngest daughter is doing envioment management at uni and some of the things that she comes home and talks about on glodable warming are quite interesting. She had to watch a dvd called A Inconveniant Truth which is a doco about globable warming presented by Al Gore. It's an eye opener as to what is happening and makes you think abuot the situation and definatly worth a look. As you said the other night if the scientists are right lets do something about it, if their wrong lets clean up the planet anyhow.

Murray

The thing is though, that the previous record was set on the 13 Jan 1939. Shouldn't the previous record have been broken numerous times since then?

From The Age on 7 feb 2009:
The highest recorded temperature Victoria has ever experienced was on January 7, 1906, when the mercury hit 50.7C in Mildura.

From the Bureau of Meteorology site:
Melbourne's most sustained heatwave occurred in January 1908 when temperatures reached 39.9 (15th January), 42.8 (16th), 44.2 (17th), 40.0 (18th), 41.1 (19th) and 42.7 (20th).

According to the IPCC, as CO2 output increases due to man burning fossil fuels, temperature should also be rising. Yet 100 year old records still stand.

Here's an interesting paragraph from UN's IPCC Chief:

The head of the UN’s climate science body says claims that UK scientists manipulated data on global warming should be investigated. . . . Dr Pachauri told BBC Radio 4’s The Report programme that the claims were serious and he wants them investigated.

If you are interested in the what has occurred with regards to the manipulation of data, there is an article on it here:

Climategate:caught Greenhanded

These UK scientists have had a large amount of input into the UN's climate change reports.

Please don't take this as a dig at you Jim. That's not how it's intended. It's meant as a look at the other side of the story.

Graeme

All Gore's center piece is a graph that makes you sick from gilt when you look at it. It is known as the Mann hockey stick and for a long time it was on the, I think 3rd page?? of the IPCC advice for policy makers report. The guy who invented it, Mann, would not release any of his data so that it could be checked. It has, after a lot of hoo har, been totally discredited and the IPCC no longer use it at all because it seems he really did "invent" it (he has apparently made quite a bit of money thou). Gore still uses it happily and obviously does not make any money from this so it must be ok to be deceitful if you intentions are pure.

Giddy Jim

Here is a bit more history on the Australia environment. What I’m attempting to do is put things into a historical prospective. At least people will be better informed, and more able to understand our climate.

The "Federation Drought", 1895-1902
‘Many of Australia’s worst droughts occur when one or two very dry years follow several years of generally below average rainfall. Such was the case in the so-called “Federation drought”, which began in the mid 1890s and reached its devastating climax in late 1901 and 1902.

The five years leading up to Federation (January 1901) saw intermittent dry spells over most of the country, particularly in 1897 and 1899; in most of Queensland, dry conditions were virtually unbroken from 1897. Most other parts of the country had reasonable rain in 1900 and early 1901, but with the coming of spring 1901 very dry weather set in across eastern Australia. By February 1902 concerns were expressed about Sydney’s water supply, and the New South Wales Government declared 26 February a day of “humiliation and prayer” for rain in that state. Similar declarations were made in Queensland in April and Victoria in September, as the drought worsened.

Despite the pleas for divine intervention, things only got worse. Though there was some winter-spring rain in Victoria and NSW, cold weather nullified its usefulness. In Queensland, enormous sheep and cattle losses were being reported by August. On some far western properties, cattle numbers plummeted from tens of thousands to mere hundreds. Rivers in western Queensland dried up; at Bourke, the Darling River virtually ran dry. Further south, towns near the Murray River such as Mildura, Balranald and Deniliquin - at that time dependent on the river for transport - suffered badly. The Australian wheat crop was all but lost, with close to the lowest yields of the century.

The drought began to break in mid-December when heavy general rain fell in Victoria, with more after Christmas. Rains extended to NSW and southern Queensland, while northern Queensland had reasonable falls from December onwards.

In Queensland, the 1902 drought was the culmination of eight years that were dry more often than not over most areas. These years had a devastating effect on stock numbers: sheep numbers fell from 91 million to 54 million, and cattle from 11.8 million to 7 million. The drought began focussing minds on irrigation, especially in the three states through which the Murray River flows: but it wasn’t until the next severe drought in 1914 that the River Murray Commission was created’.

Regards

Kim

"Melbourne had its hottest day on record last February.

Melbourne has just had its hottest November on record."

That's undeniably true however your scientists will also tell you as a city grows it changes the micro climate so it becomes warmer irrespective of any overall climate change.
From the nineteen hundreds to the fifties the ozi climates generally became wetter, since the fifties rainfall has declined and I have no idea what will happen in the next half decade .

Fellas,

All I am suggesting is keep an open mind. My scientific knowledge is pretty much limited to being able to confidently say that pure water boils at 100C.

What I object to is people screaming that it is cyclical because that is what they want to believe. It may be cyclical, but of course it may not.

And I challenge anyone to suggest that reducing pollution can be a bad thing.

Jim.

"My scientific knowledge is pretty much limited to being able to confidently say that pure water boils at 100C."

That's at sea level Jim :)

And at a given air pressure!

Why do we regard Carbon dioxide as a pollutant - without it there would be no photosynthesis in plants and no oxygen for us animals to breathe. I have spent more years than I care to remember fixing up various environmental problems (salinity, erosion, loss of vegetation etc) but just can't swallow the CO2 as a pollutant line.

Val.

Water vapour has a far greater impact on climate than CO2, yet this seems to be ignored in the climate change computer modelling. Some (call them skeptics if you like!) are also saying that CO2 has a diminsihing effect - ie. after a certain point, the more you add, the smaler the impact it has.

Interestingly, I saw a very pro-Tree-Hugger BBC documentary the other day (I think it was called: The Politics behind Climate Change) and they did this little demonstration to "prove" that CO2 absorbs heat: they lit a candle at one end of a large glass tube (placed horizontally and open at both ends) and at the other end they had a heat recording device which displayed the heat signature of the candle flame on a computer screen. They then pumped CO2 into the glass tube and pointed out that the heat signature of the candle reduced in size and intensity thereby "proving" that CO2 absorbs heat, hence: Greenhouse effect - no further testing required!
Now, I have to question whether the CO2 was absorbing the heat, or was it SHEILDING the heat (which would mean more CO2 would lead to global cooling)? *OR* was it (as we demonstrated so many times in high-school chemistry) that a candle flame will always diminish (or even extinguish altogether) in the presence of CO2 (for the same reason: a flame is the test used by cavers to check for CO2 levels deep in a cave). Now, if the climate change religion is based on scientific "proofs" such as these, sign me up with the skeptics too!

You need to get your facts right. Black Saturday 2009 was the hottest day EVER recorded in Victoria. Hotter than 1938 or as I recall 7/1/1939.

Something is happening. Ignore it if you will, but I'm not prepared to.

MMmmmm, so you are willing to disregard the 71 odd years, however you want to shoot me down over 1.5 weeks??? Oh, and I did say "previous highest ever recorded temperature"

well thats looking at one thing in isolation

for melbourne
hottest jan temp was in 1939 feb in 2009 march in 1940 april in 1938 may in 1905 june in 1957 july in 1975 august in 1982 september in 1928 october in 1914 november in 1894 and december in 1876


In my neck of the woods (WA) the hottest temps were recorded nearly 20 years ago

Melbourne may have had it's hottest day this year, but the earth has been cooling since 2001. There are about 4 Global Warming models predicting earth temperature and the earth is much cooler than any of them. The Earth is really screwing up the results for the Climate change mob.

"Black Saturday 2009 was the hottest day EVER recorded in Victoria"
Just a question, Jim: Do you know where that was recorded (or at what time)? Is it possible that the heat produced by the fires could have contributed to a higher-than-normal reading?
Regardless, it's a bit of a stretch to concluded there is a 'warming trend' when just one day is hotter than all records to date - in a set of data such as temperature records, you have to have one that is higher than all the others, just like there will be a minimum somewhere amongst the data...

Oh, and by the way Boobook2, why do you think the terminology has changed from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change"?! In the 1970's they predicted massve cooling, in the 1990's they predicted warming, in the 2000's they realised they didn't really know, but something still HAS to be done!

Not so long ago, it was thought that science and technology would solve all of mankind's problems. Anyone with their eyes open realised that it didn't (perhaps it introduced more?!). To me, the Climate Change Religion is a result of the pendulum swinging back the other way as the CC evangelists try to persuade us to abandon the technology that we are so comfortable with (cars, planes, etc., reliable electricity & drinking water, even agriculture as many of them push us towards living off our own personal vegie gardens...). They, in time, will in turn realise that this likewise does not solve the problems of mankind, and the pendulum will swing again... this too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind.

Tim,

I'm not prepared to get ino a debate to prove or disprove Climate Change. I'm not qualified to do so, and I suspect neither are you. I'm simply keeping keeping an open mind.

If the Scientists are in fact right and we leave it another 50 years to do something it may well be too late.

If the Scientists are wrong, we still clean up the Planet and find renewable energy sources (which will have to be done at sometime in the future anyway). There is little to be concerned about, that is why I find it hard to understand why so many people are vehemently against doing anything.

Regards,

Jim.

Jim, No I'm not qualified to argue in detail, but I am qualified (as is everyone) to question what I swallow.

I certainly agree that we should all be responsible in how we use the resources of the earth, but I do believe they are there for us to use, and I object to the way that "saving the planet" has now become a mainstream religion where anyone who even dares to question it faces excommunication and condemnation. I also seriously doubt the ability of man to change the climate at his whim and desire.

I'm al for responsible use but in terms of the actions demanded, it doesn't strike me as responsible, more like "straining out gnats while swallowing camels" and those people who trade in their barely-run-in cars for a hybrid are a classic example (to manufacture a new car has a far greater environmental impact than all the petrol. oil, etc. used by a 'traditional' car over it's whoile life, and that's not even starting to talk about the batteries in a hybrid vehicle!). We rip out serviceable a/c systems for enitre buildings because soneone has released a more efficient model and ignore the impact (ie. energy used) of manufacturing the new equipment, delivering it to site, installing it, and melting down the old one? Meanwhile, we could acheive the same gains (without any of the costs) by simply adjusting the thermostat a couple of degrees. We are forced to use 'energy efficient' light globes without considering how much more energy they take to produce and often have to replace entire fittings to new ones that fit the 'new' globes. We switch off our lights for an hour once a year while all year we continue to use electric lifts/escalators to travel one or two floors and demandi that the office is exactly 20 deg. C all year round. I could go on...

Instead of helping people in undeveloped countries (which contribute much more pollution than Australia etc.), we will end up undeveloping the developed countries with the outcome being unreliable electricity, water, transportation. While I don't have many views in common with Anna Bligh, I have to agree with her response to the rejection of her proposed dam, simply that it will be impossible to get approval for any new dam in Australia even though the increasing population is (as it to be expected) placing greater demand on infrastructure and utilities.

I also see cause to question the real motives of the movement - while I haven't read the whole Copenhagen report, I understand that what is intended is to sign up countries to one worldwide regulatory body that has control over matters that relate to more than you and I would consider to be related to "climate" - a One World Government?!

Sorry Jim, more to the point:
A few years back I heard Greens MLA Kerry Tucker expressing some bewilderment about why she doesn't secure much (if any) of the Christian vote since they of all people should be keen to look after the world that God made... The answer is partly in the other things that often seem to go along with the policies of the Green parties that are obviously and unashamedly anti-Christian (including policies about population control - some people already report having 'aborted' their children because they believe it is 'environmentally irresponsible' to allow their children to be born and live in the world.). And while many people who identify themselves as 'Christian' might differ even on many of these issues, they are simply symptoms or flow-on effects of a very diffferent worldview....

If I can say here: the Christian viewpoint is that people are rulers or stewards OVER the world to use it and look after it (yes, you could well argue that we generally haven't been doing that as well as we should have been!). Importantly, the worldview includes a Creator who is in control and who sustains/maintains the world.

Meanwhile, the Environmentalist viewpoint reverses this order and sees people as SUBJECTS to Mother Nature, worshipping the creatED world rather than a CreatOR. Importanly, they say there is no Creator, and no one in control.

Given that in the last census more than half of Australians identified themselves as belonging to the first group, it is not surprising to find that there are many people are opposed to spending big money trying to change something that we simply have no control over.

How much should we spend on preventing continental drift which has been shown to cause earthquakes and volcanoes?! I'd say: Nothing, the same amount as we should be spending trying to control the global climate (which could be disrupted at any time by one of the volcanoes that we failed to prevent!).

Timbo ,this where you get it so wrong.

"Instead of helping people in undeveloped countries (which contribute much more pollution than Australia etc.),"


The per capita for china is about 4 tons of carbon per year.
The average Indian makes about 1 ton per year.
Europeans make about 8-9 tons per year
Americans and Australians make about 18-20 tons per capita.

China just barely makes a little more pollution than the US in total ,but it has about 4 times the population.


'If I can say here: the Christian viewpoint is that people are rulers or stewards OVER the world to use it and look after it (yes, you could well argue that we generally haven't been doing that as well as we should have been!). Importantly, the worldview includes a Creator who is in control and who sustains/maintains the world.

Meanwhile, the Environmentalist viewpoint reverses this order and sees people as SUBJECTS to Mother Nature, worshipping the creatED world rather than a CreatOR. Importanly, they say there is no Creator, and no one in control."

You seem to be hinting its more important to worship god than use science to fix things.
Is that what you believe or are told at your local church group?

And what is it with the capital letters on the end of "created and creator"?LOL

Pollution is about much more than just carbon. Pollution also results from people just chucking their rubbish in the river (because it gets it out of my sight) or burning it. In many asian countries, the sky never appears blue and in some countries (even away from the cities), the sun can't even shine stongly enough to cast a proper shadow and visibility is reduced to a few kilometres (even on a clear day). I'm all for reducing this pollution, not because I think it has such a significant effect on the global climate, but because it's disgusting and unhealthy.

If you want to talk about the Carbon figures then you have to question where they came from. I'd suggest they are based on a lot of averages and assumptions which are probably reasonably accurate for the most part.
BUT: do they include the impact of incinerating rubbish of all types? What figures do they use for the carbon emissions of a car - something for a well maintained modern vehicle, or an old tired one that is always overloaded and barely runs at all? What about a motorbike? Do they include figures for 2-stroke motorcycles with a mix so wrong that they are followed everywhere by a great blue fog?

"You seem to be hinting its more important to worship god than use science to fix things."
If I have to prioritise them, then I'm not just hinting at it! Afterall, the most important thing to a person IS religion, whether it be football, family, 4WDing or even science.

And what is it with the capital letters on the end of "created and creator"?LOL
Purely to emphasise the difference (since I can't use italics, underlining or bold type).

Gidday

"Will be interesting to see where all this leads to, as our main stream media in Australia have been pretty quiet reporting this.;

You obviously don't read News Ltd publications ... the home of the climate change deniers led by the Herald Sun (Melbourne) columnist Andrew Bolt

Cheers

Rocco

Pauper,

Krakatoa is a volcanic island that slowly builds up lava and pressure and then violently erupts roughly every 1300 years or so.The eruption in the 1800s was a relatively small one [it buggered the tides at Derby for the unloading of cargo] compared to the previous one in the year 537AD [scientists have carbon dated ash samples that have Krakatoa's chemical "finger print" from around the planet] in which so much ash and debris was spewed into the atmosphere that the sunlight was so diminished for two years that the world was plunged into a 24 month winter, consequently crops failed and starvation to hold leading to the rapid breakdown of civilization thus heralding the start of the "Dark Ages" in Europe, which took a few centuries to recover from. The silver lining to this is that Krakatoa shouldn't blow until about 3200ish.

Welldone

Pauper and Welldone, actually, the Krakatoa eruption in 1883 DID cause measurable global cooling for around 18 months, and more severe winters in the northern hemisphere. It is also understood that a few hundred years earlier, a larger volcano erupted to the east of that area (still in the Indonesia area) which caused massive cooling and wiped out an entire dialect due to cold weather and failed crops etc. If you want to read more on this, I'd recommend "Krakatoa" by Simon Winchester (Penguin Books publishes it, as does at least one other publisher) which also looks ait a whole range of other issues (including plate tectonics, etc.) - I couldn't put it down! BTW: Anak Krakatau (Child of Krakatau) is continually growing and significant seismic activity has been recorded at the site over the past 6 months or year prompting the Indonesian Government to raise the alert level in the surrounding area...

It raises an interesting question though - if we can't even control just one volcanic eruption can which have such an effect on the global climate, who is man that he thinks he order the climate to change the way he wants it to?

It's all a big ploy so that Governments sign the Kyoto Protocol. Conspiracy theorist that I am...lol.
Once a government signs the protocol the one world government (United Nations) will kick in and you can't get out of it, there is no turning back. The fine print is that every other governemnt that has signed the protocol must agree to let you out of it.
The worst thing is that once the power greedy UN get a lot of nations to sign, they can actually enforce tax laws etc within whatever country signs, and you must pay. 70% tax rates here we come...lol
Don't you love the conspiracy theories...
(Author of this post may not necessarily agree with the content within), just something to think about...lol

Yes, climate and weather are very different
( as are ämps & ämphours )

Would they then charge more for the air in the Kimberley than down in the southern state, after all the air is so much cleaner up there!

Maîneÿ . . .

Yes, I fully agree with you there

We were taught at skool that the earth was at some stage a hot molten mass.
Then it cooled down and it went into the ICE age.

Since then, some many, many hundreds of thousands of years ago it's been getting warmer again, that has happened long before the sheep, cows, cars and you an me were even thought to exist.

I'm not going to suggest the true reason, it may be simply because the earth is getting closer to the sun to some immeasurable degree, who cares anyway, because you an me can't stop it, not with a tax of OUR money or by any other means presently known to mankind.
To suggest it's man-made may not the answer because they have the same air over the African deserts as the Amazon forests, are they suffering the same contamination, for the exact same reason??

Maîneÿ . . .

It's called climate change now because global warming was wrong as the global temp has dropped over the last ten years so that had the be changed to climate change. LOL

Some people pick to talk about the troughs in a graph and some pick to talk about the peaks.
So both maybe right in some cases.

I have yet to hear a convincing argument that Co2 is so bad, the trees love it and can't function without it.

Hi folks,
just had a thought, just as well there are no dinosaurs left. Imagine the methane they would produce. Imagine the smell! Guess us climate sceptics are the only dinosaurs left. I remember as a kid in the fifties when 40 degree temps would last a week or more and stamping on the tar bubbles with my bare feet, soles like elephant hide. I'm enjoying the thread, thanks one and all.
Bruce.

Can back you up on that one Gazal Champion, just after the weather programs were first broadcast on Channel 7 WA (during the late fifties) a record of 11 consecutive days over 100 degrees farenheit (38c) was recorded. Happy Days. PAUPER

yes, but they have to send 90, because they are all employed by the government and no-one there actually knows who knows what about anything, with 90 going some-one will (probably) be attending the seminars and not going off to visit friends or family at our expence.

Maîneÿ . . .

Hi Mainey, in the Sunday Mail this morning it stated "Australia will pump more than 400 tonnes on greenhouse gases into the atmosphere in sending one of the world's largest delegations to this month's Copenhagen climate change conference" what a mob of......... so your right mate ....we need to hobble this Rudd fellow.

He dosn't even have a valid "plan" to trake there to slow it down either

Maîneÿ . . .

A list of scientific organisations who believe that climate change is real and is most likely caused by human activity


Site Link

I would not go believing everything you read on Wiki, especially when all those fancy government acronyms are using the same data that the dodgy uk scientists have been busily manipulating.

Gees Ross ... I can't believe you posted that on this web site. ;-)

Yes and if you read the link further up the thread posted by Member - Graeme W (NSW) on climate gate you will see the eminent scientists of the IPCC have now been found to have fudged the forecast temperature figures meaning that all the supposed "Scientific consensus" of opinion that is so often sprouted by Rudd, Wong and Co is extremely doubtful and at the very least indeed unreliable.

Will be interesting to watch the slow unwinding of this "Scientific Consensus" view attitude as the voters start to wise up to the simple fact they have been sold a crock of crap and the politicians start to fear their electoral position.

Bottom line is that they could never support the argument of carbon emissions being the cause of climate change or global warming with cold hard facts, its always been a case of "We think" and this we think attitude if allowed to continue will cost tens of thousands of Aussie jobs and burden the average household with undue financial hardship.

The emails Ive seen appear to be taken out of context and are unlikely to have had the knock out effect that skeptics have deluded themselves into believing would happen.

The body of evidence that points to global climate change caused by greenhouse gases becomes more irrefutable day by day.
The theory that says that these gases lock in heat and stop it from escaping into space are universally accepted.
If you have something that says otherwise, please provide a link

All countries will be heavily burdened by the carbon emission costs because they increasingly believe that things may get worse by doing nothing.

If there is some kind of global conspiracy to make profits from climate change,please point me in the direction so I can jump on the bandwagon.

If its some kind of loony left/greeny conspiracy,please explain the aims and how they will benefit

The start of some the links that offer counter argument to the Pro argument are listed in this thread above, Google will keep you reading for days.

If the emails and the science they refer are to be given any credibility it begs the question of why the need to misrepresent the case in the first place?

Why not simply tell the truth and apply the current and correct figures without application of a guesstimate?

If the science is so "irrefutable" then why do the Pro lobby fail to answer the counter argument with nothing more than labelling and belittling the protagonists as "sceptics or non believers"?

The science is not able to be proven that man made carbon emissions are the cause and large doubt remains.
They also cannot support this argument when its recognised that less than 4% of world wide carbon emissions are man made.

Who profits??
Try the proposed carbon trading market for one which is looking more like being controlled by the big banks.

Who else profits?
Try a government that has spent itself and the people it represents into mindless massive debt and needs to raise the tax base to cover the spend.

And if its not about the money then why offer the supposed biggest emitters the biggest financial subsidies?
Surely if this was fairdinkum and they really want to do something about the problem then shouldn't they should be targeting this area with more vigour, not giving them a get out of jail free card?

Near where I live approval has just been granted for a massive new marina and housing development, obviously right on the beach.
Approval was given in the face of the supposed evidence of predictable rising sea levels which will have an effect on this development at some future stage.
I guess that rising sea levels are a non existent problem in the face of stamp duties and other government revenue that would be collected from this development.

"If its some kind of loony left/greeny conspiracy,please explain the aims and how they will benefit"

Aims are simple. To make money--------- lots of it

how will they benifit? - see above Emission trading companies are already springing up fly by night companys with dodgey floats headed by the same failed execs that brought you the GFC with no intention of seeing out the long term. Think .COM

then theres those in the scientific comunity wallowing in grants to do stuff like figure out if undisturbed Mulga scrub is acting as a carbon sink so some cockie who cant make a cent off his weed infested goat ravaged station can sell carbon credits

and the list goes on.

Its become a big overhyped boom industry based on nothing thus needs to self feed before its predictable bust
(again think .COM)

Image Could Not Be Found

If only Fran Bailey hadn't been sick last Tuesday.

Turnbull's View

There is one small piece of truth in your post John ,and that is that human emission are only a small part of the overall carbon emitted into the atmosphere.
The problem however is that life on earth has over millions of years become adept at balancing itself with that level of carbon emission.
It cannot adjust to the extra 4%(and increasing) amounts that humans contribute to in a few hundred years.


Back to the left wing greeny global conspiracy.
Your trying to tell me that 3000 climatologists and many more from other related fields from all the countries of the world have combined their lies to feed some giant tird sandwich to the govts of the world so people who own these companies can benefit and get rich.
What do all these scientists get ? Is there some king of giant payday when the big corporations handover a big slice of their ill gotten gains in secret to say thanks to all the scientists who sold their soul.

If there is strong evidence that climate change is not caused by humans,then why dont the huge petro chemical companies fund the research to prove it.
After all, they are the one who stand to lose.
I know what your going to say,they are in on the conspiracy as well;)

This is so unbelievable that not even a James Bond fan could swallow that without flinching

And you blame Kevin Rudd LOL. Little Johnny was saying that a carbon trading scheme was going to happen liong before Rudd became leader of the opposition.
Its also highly likely that more than just Malcom Turnbull will cross the floor and vote with the govt.

The govt spending during the financial crisis is lower than expected and Ive yet to see any serious financial expert condemn the govts handling of the crisis.
Not only that ,nearly every other country in the world spent up big to protect jobs and their economy.
And to say there is another conspiracy to use the ETS to raise money to pay off the debt just makes it sound more ludicrous.
The notion of carbon trading was around for many years before the financial crisis hit.

Careful Ross!

A well argued logical contribution to the discussion will get you banned or receive a multitude of personal attacks!

I would add one rider to your comment.

The climate change denialists have yet to present a consensus of opinion amongst people with proven expertise in the areas of meteorology, climatology, environmental sciences or ecological sciences that global climate change is a fallacy

If anyone on this forum who knows of a peer reviewed paper from one of these people and from the consensus that support them, please post a link!

To form an informed opinion, these people’s papers should be broadcast to the world

(This of course restricts links to blogs created with Professors who have a PhDs in engineering)

"A well argued logical contribution to the discussion will get you banned or receive a multitude of personal attacks!"

And I guess this applies to whether you are a AGW believer or an AGW skeptic - there seems to be no process whereby a skeptic can have their well meaning (in my case, at least) silly questions answered, and the believers just say "trust the science". If you have a question that is perceived to be hostile to the theory of AGW you are automatically branded a heritic!

For example, the most prevalent greenhouse (by a long way) is not carbon dioxide, it is water vapour. To quote the attached article:

"Also, while we have good atmospheric measurements of other key greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, we have poor measurements of global water vapor, so it is not certain by how much atmospheric concentrations have risen in recent decades or centuries".

link here

So why is Cophenhagen about carbon dioxide emissions, and not water vapour - who knows?

In the age of the internet, where every dominant theory may be challenged by pretty much anyone, to brand skeptics as ignorant, red-necked dinosaurs is somewhat counter productive.

So I'll just sit out the debate and enjoy the theatre that this issue provides.

George_M

I stated…"The climate change denialists have yet to present a consensus of opinion amongst people with proven expertise in the areas of meteorology, climatology, environmental sciences or ecological sciences that global climate change is a fallacy

If anyone on this forum who knows of a peer reviewed paper from one of these people and from the consensus that support them, please post a link!"

Water vapour is of the environment (atmosphere) and probably has been stable for a number of thousands of years (where is the research to indicate this has changed over the past 250 years?)…the link you provided states that there has been a 30% increase in the concentration of CO2 since the beginning of the industrial revolution

Prove to me that Carbon dioxide has no effect on the narrow environmental window in which the current inhabitants of the earth exist.

"Water vapour is of the environment (atmosphere) and probably has been stable for a number of thousands of years (where is the research to indicate this has changed over the past 250 years?)…"

Actually the article says:

"Water Vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere..."

and "However, huge scientific uncertainty exists in defining the extent and importance of this (water vapor) feedback loop".

and "Also, while we have good atmospheric measurements of other key greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane, we have poor measurements of global water vapor, so it is not certain by how much atmospheric concentrations have risen in recent decades or centuries,"

But I'm not making a statement, nor am I seeking to prove anything - I'm simply asking a question: 'Why is the focus on carbon dioxide, and not water vapour.

Your response ends with the typical AGW believer's comment "Prove to me..." etc. Not, IMHO, all that constructive.

As I said, and as you have demonstrated in your response, there is no process for answering questions that are perceived to challenge the scientific orthodoxy, so I'll remain a spectator.

Thanks

George_M

My biggest issue is not with climate change I have no proof weather it is happening or not.

Its with an ETS there is not a snowflakes chance in hell (which we may yet get)
that an ETS will make1 iota of difference

either were cutting emmisions or were not

setting up trading scemes will just lead to higherprices and corrupt companys and there fly by night CEOs

Nargun,

It’s actually up to the people putting forward the AGW theory to prove that it’s correct, not the other way around.

You use the term “climate change denialists”, as if people are denying that the climate changes. Do you know anyone who believes that? It’s mans contribution that is being questioned.

Here’s a link that leads to 450 papers, that are supposedly peer reviewed and skeptical on AGW:

450 peer reviewed papers skeptical of AGW

Graeme

The "Consensus View" is a wonderful term used by the Pro Climate Change lobby.

The link below offers an excellent insight into how this "Consensus View" was established.
Just one quick extract probably sums it up best.

Science is not, repeat not, done by “consensus”, though politics is. The IPCC process, which aims at and then falsely claims “consensus”, is an explicitly political process, and not a scientific one.

Furthermore, the “consensus” they are so fond of clinging to is not merely imagined but imaginary. The IPCC’s conclusion that it is 90% likely that human activities caused most of the warming of the past century is not only unscientific, in that it is not possible to place a quantitative estimate on such a proposition,
but is also by no means universally shared among the scientific community.

In fact, the crucial chapter of the IPCC’s 2007 report, attributing most of the warming that ended in 1998 to anthropogenic influences, was written by just 53 people, not all of them climate scientists.
More than half of the comments made on the chapter by some 60 official IPCC reviewers were negative and demanded changes, but the IPCC merely overruled them – and then tried to conceal the reviewers’ comments, burying them in a library that was closed for renovation, until a Freedom of Information Act request was filed and the truth emerged.

Have a read of the facts behind the consensus view here

The Truth Behind Consensus

I'm not sure where you came up with the figures of 3000 climate change scientists but I'm sure there are 3000 more out there who oppose the view.
Given that your 3000 are all reading from the same set of data which is now known to be flawed then its not unexpected that your 3000 will develop the same view.
Provide the bare boned data rather than the fudged figures to those who request it and lets see what happens.

I have always taken the view that I will not be lead by the nose particularly in respect to politicians bearing a new tax, so I question the back ground and the motive, bad policy is still bad policy regardless of whether its sprouted by Labour or Liberal, the ETS and the basis it is founded is bad policy.

You're quoting Christopher Monckton and expect us to take you seriously?

This is the same bloke who wanted to solve the AIDS problem by testing every kuman being monthly and rounding up each and every sufferer and sending them off into life long quarantine. That is to say creating "Leper Colonies".

ohn the figure of 3000 represents the approximate number of climatologists in the world.
It has been reported many times that of that number only a small handful disagree with their colleagues.

Climatologists work almost exclusively in government departments. In many countries they have been the victims of a "shoot the messenger" mentality for offering their best advice.
In the US many of them were forced to retract or downgrade their predictions to march lock step with the Bush administration(which later recanted and joined the climate change debate in a more proactive manner)

Graeme W

You use the term “climate change denialists”, as if people are denying that the climate changes. Do you know anyone who believes that? It’s mans contribution that is being questioned. "

The skeptics are in more than one camp.

One camp agree the climate is changing but doubt that is caused by human activity.

The other camp refuse to believe the climate could ever change.
This group is often linked to bible creationism in the US.
If you are a creationist,then you believe the world is only 6000 years old and any scientific debate that mentions millions of years is pointless.

Hi George

Love to read this stuff but wasn't going to answer, we have been having to much fun in the bush, but I feel for your point about just looking for unpressured answers to questions.

We should be able to get unemotive responses to things we consider important.

For us in the R&D world Global warming by people was plain to see as early as 1972 and has just been constantly re-inforced since.
Back in 1972 we also argued against smoking , mircowave radiation etc etc and
these things have now become accepted mainstream as has GW recently.

Might be better to start a new post though -somehow weaving it into an exploroz type question and I will certainly try to answer it logically.

I don't know - maybe something like "How will GW affect my 4wding going forward".

On your question about why C02 , its because of an a well know characteristic
of gases in that they reflect/absorb radiation of certain frequencies and
normal heat as we know it can't escape through the gas and becomes trapped instead of going out into space as it used to.

You ask why not water vapour - well it like all compounds reflect as well but at a different frequency which traps heat less.

Sort of like glass being transparent , it is to frequencies our eyes use , but glass
completely blocks other frequencies that our eyes don't see.

Geez Robin - now I'm being offered AGW advice from someone who puts water in his chardonnay!

(just joking)

Thanks for your comments: the more I read about this topic, the more conflicting information I get, and it is next to impossible to have an objective conversation about it. The outcome of the Copenhagen conference should be "interesting".

I just don't know whether to go back to bar-treads on the Prado because it's going to get hot and dry, or go with swampers because it's going to get very wet:-)

George_M

George, you might like to look at last night's interview with Paul Hansen on ABC, Nasa's climatologist. One of several issues raised in this thread that he examined in some detail was the water vapour argument. He pointed out that water vapour content in air is a function of temperature, ie, the more the air warms, the higher the potential water vapour content, which, as you say further adds to the warming cycle. Over oceans we will get (are already getting) more saturated air. Depending on a range of issues, some areas of the world will be hotter wetter amd some hotter but drier. At the interface between the two however, storms /hurricanes will be generated and the bigger the energy differential, the more violent the storm. Even those scientists who are sceptical of the human input into all this seem to agree that storms/hurricanes are increasing in frequency and wind speed.

"The theory that says that these gases lock in heat and stop it from escaping into space are universally accepted.
If you have something that says otherwise, please provide a link"

I don't have a link but interestingly, I saw a BBC documentary the other day which was trying to make me a convert (I think it was called: The Politics behind Climate Change) and they did this little demonstration to "prove" that CO2 absorbs heat: they lit a candle at one end of a large glass tube (placed horizontally and open at both ends) and at the other end they had a heat recording device which displayed the heat signature of the candle flame on a computer screen. They then pumped CO2 into the glass tube and pointed out that the heat signature of the candle reduced in size and intensity thereby "proving" that CO2 absorbs heat, hence: Greenhouse effect - no further testing required!
Now, I have to question whether the CO2 was absorbing the heat, or was it SHEILDING the heat (which would mean more CO2 would lead to global cooling)? I note that there was no change in heat signature for the surrounding air which I would have expected if the CO2 was absorbing the heat.
*OR* more importantly, was it (as we demonstrated so many times in high-school chemistry) that a candle flame will always diminish (or even extinguish altogether) in the presence of CO2 (for the same reason: a flame is the test used by cavers to check for CO2 levels deep in a cave). I note that they didn't show the flame at this time, only the heat signature on the computer screen.
Is that the best proof they can come up with? If not, why didn't they show a better one? If it is, and if the climate change religion is based on scientific "proofs" such as these, sign me up with the skeptics! (and remember, skeptic just means someone who questions).

"Your [sic] trying to tell me that 3000 climatologists and many more from other related fields from all the countries of the world have combined their lies"
You can't determine right from wrong or truth from error simply by 'consensus' or a vote... Surely >1 billion Christians worldwide couldn't be wrong, why don't you join them? Or what about the >1 billion Muslims who say the Christians are wrong? Could they be wrong themselves? And who knows how many atheists there are who say that both the Christians and Muslims are wrong? Perhaps, as you seem to suggest, we should all have a vote and take the consensus - perhaps that would solve a lot of the world's conflict!
John C (Vic) has already said something similar: "Science is not, repeat not, done by “consensus”, though politics is. The IPCC process, which aims at and then falsely claims “consensus”, is an explicitly political process, and not a scientific one."

"The other camp refuse to believe the climate could ever change.
This group is often linked to bible creationism in the US."
I think if you did a bit more reading you'd find that this 'camp' also maintains that there was once a global flood (as was also eluded to in an earlier follow-up in this thread), and that an ice age would have almost certainly followed that event - far from refusing to believe that the climate could ever change! This ice age is thought to be the most likely explanation for the extinction of (cold-blooded) dinosaurs (and not some asteroid that impacted the earth with such great force as to kill the dinosaurs but leave no evidence of its impact!)

"If you are a creationist,then you believe the world is only 6000 years old and any scientific debate that mentions millions of years is pointless."
Not pointless, just subject to the same open scrutiny/questioning/testing as any other scientific debate, but that's another topic...!

Paul Hansen, Nasa's climatologist Mfewster? Wasn't he the guy who defended some activists in court and argued that they were justified in vandalising power stations because there was a higher order: 'saving the earth'?! Sounds like a religious fanatic if ever I heard of one!

"Climatologists work almost exclusively in government departments. In many countries they have been the victims of a "shoot the messenger" mentality for offering their best advice." And that is why we have people who believe reports that "of that number only a small handful disagree with their colleagues."

"One camp agree the climate is changing but doubt that is caused by human activity. The other camp refuse to believe the climate could ever change."
And there is a third camp that for some reason seem to think that the climate must not be allowed to change, despite evidence that it has changed significantly in the past (ie. since the ice age).

Timbo I havent seen the test so I wont comment on it.
This explains the effect in far more detail.
If gases did not trap/filter heat ,the earth would be as cold as outer space on the dark side and burning hot in the day. Simple as that

lhttp://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

I didnt say the climatologists had a vote ,its called "peer reviewed".

The bible right wingers have lost the battle in US courts for the right to have creationism taught in schools as a science after they got caught inventing facts and telling lies under oath.
I couldnt agree more with the judge that made that decision regardless of how many millions of muslims and christians there are out there

Imwell aware the creationists would love us all to believe in a great flood ,as it ties in beautifully with the bible.


Scientists can reliably carbon date the bones of dinosuars back to their extinction 65 millions years ago.
But scientists don't agree on what the killed the mega fauna of the day but it was swift and sudden.

Ive yet to hear of anyone claim the climate does not/ should not change,got a link to one that does??
Its all about HOW FAST it is changing that is the problem.

I dont know which ice age you are referring to ,there have been a few to my knowledge.
Is it the one after the flood that noah escaped from in his ark?

Are you saying there is something worth debating about the earth being 6000 years old?

I get really concerned about people applying religious beliefs to a problem (perceived or otherwise).

Religion (of any persuasion) is a belief in something that has never been proven to exist. It's a faith in mythical creations. If it gives people solace, well and good, but it is nothing more than a belief.

Science is based on facts, experiments and logic.

I'd rather place my faith in the Medical Profession, Scientists and Pharmatologists to ensure My Wife's Cancer doesn't return, than sit a stooped position with my hands clasped together talking to the ceiling hoping for help.

I'll never decry anyone's right to practice religion, but I'll not have it thrust upon me either.

Ross, fair enough - not seeing the demonstration it's a bit hard to comment - in fact, just seeing on TV is a bit hard to comment conclusively, hence I express my reservations as questions.

Yes, gases hold some heat, but not as much as humidity (water vapour) or a body of water like the ocean, hence why coastal areas have more stable temperatures from day to night than the desert. Is there less CO2 in the desert? Probably, but there are also more significant factors.

I'm not going to try to pretend that 'Bible right-wingers' are immune from fabricating facts or lying under oath (though, if actually true, it is a terrible shame to their cause). Even IPCC officials are accused of fabricating facts! But you dismiss this as "blown out of proporation" - I trust that you offered the same charity to those 'Bible right-wingers' at the time their alleged scam was discovered!

You suggest that bible believers will believe in a global flood because it fits what they want to believe - I think we all look for evidence of what we want to believe - can you admit that you agree with the US judge because his finding was consistent with what you wanted to believe? It's a bit much to place your whole worldview on the opinion of only one judge as if he/she is completely immune from bias and prejudice (was Lindy Chamberlain innocent? what about Schapelle (spelling?) Corby? They were both found guilty by judges and even though you and I have our own suspicions, I think it's only fair to admit that you and I will never really know for sure).

Using the same Carbon Dating methods, scientists can also test the age of shells of live snails, and find them to be thousands of years old! And results vary wildly for similar dating methods carried out on volcanic rock even where the eruption date is known.

How fast is the climate changing? Fast enough to freeze woolly mamoths before they can even swallow their mouthful of grass?!

Yes, there is evidence around for a young earth if you care to look for it, but you probably won't find it in your high-school textbook - at least, not since the 'right to teach' [a young earth] was outlawed in a court case! :) I mentioned a few to you in an earlier thread on this same topic, one that comes to mind was that the sea is simply not salty enough to be billions of years old.

Jim, more simply, it is: something one believes in and follows devotedly, or a particular interest or influence that is important in your life/decisions. Thus science or even Climate Change can be 'religions' depending on their level of influence on their 'followers'. Everyone one is therefore religious to something or someone and is influenced or motivated to action based on these beliefs so you will have a hard time trying to find a person who will not apply their 'religious beliefs' to a problem, for example: the belief that science can/will solve all one's problems.

I'm certainly not going to renounce science and you do well to turn to the Medical Profession regarding your wife's cancer. However, this is a very different branch of science to the one predicting climate change (and much less politicised). You have seen how science can help you with some problems, but that doesn't mean that science can solve all problems - Can it end famines, malnutrition and starvation? It can certainly help.
Can it end terrorism? Can it control earthquakes/floods/volcanoes/etc?

Science (in its pure form) is based on facts, experiments and logic. But it's also based on assumptions (which face it, may not always be right). Science, like politics or even choice of 4WD, is also affected by prejudice and preconceived ideas (and dare I say it: your source of funding). When politics get involved, you may even find that some findings are reported prominantly while others seem to hardly get a mention (if any). One of the reasons this site is so good is that there are representatives from many walks of life - if I went to a Toyota forum, would I get a balanced opinion on what 4WD to buy? Now, consider the local newspaper when it comes to Climate Change - does it give a balanced opinion on climate change?

I'll never decry anyone's right to practice religion, but I'll not have it thrust upon me either - and that includes the Climate Change religion, and all the taxes that go with it! :-)

Sorry Tim. It was James Hansen, not Paul . We both got it wrong. but your decsription of what happened is a bit misleading. He was called as an expert witness re the effects of the emissions in an attempt to build up a defence, not as a character witness. He has nothing to do with the actual event. Whether or not you approve of the actions of the accused has nothing to do with the validity or otherwise of the science.
Tim, do you believe satellites go around the Earth and do you believe in atomic power, which relies on Einsteins E=MC2 theory? If you do, you have to accept that the age of the Earth is something like 13 billion years because exactly the same maths, when applied to astronomy give us these results for the age of the universe. You might like to look up the history of Bishop Usher in Britain. He's the bloke who came up with the notion that the world was 6000 years old. Once you have read his story, you may want to rethink this.

Mfewster, I hadn't remembered the name, I just remembered it was NASA's climatologist - all I was trying to point out was that his view of Climate Change is 'religious' since he argued that actions done in the name of Climate Change are more important than obeying the law. Maybe I got that confused and it was not specifically his argument but he was just part of the defense. Hey, even the Bible instructs that we should obey civil authorities...!

Yes, I believe in satellites orbitting the earth and atomic power and I'm not going to dispute E=MC²! Are you referring to Einstein's attempt to show a mathematical relationship between gravity and electromagnetic forces (such as light)? Because if you are, as far as I was aware, he was unsuccessful... If not, please elaborate.

And Bishop Ushher? I'm not sure he was the first to come up with the earth's age at 6,000 years old, but he seemed particularly interested in trying to establish an exact date for Creation (for whatever reason?!). Such a definite date could only be speculative, especially when it turns out that Christ came sometime between 2BC and 6BC!

E (energy) = M (mass)XC(speed of light) squared. This equation is the basis for just about all calculations in atomic physics.It is also (in conjunction with Newton's Laws of Motion, from which it is derived) the mathematics that when used with what is known as "The red shift" enables the speed, distance, mass and age of stars and galaxies to be calculated. If there is something wrong with that maths, satellites and atomic power don't work. If the maths is correct, the universe is around 15 billion years old.
Re Bishop Usher. He is the bloke who first came up with the magic 6000 years figure for the age of the Earth based on his analysis of the Bible. He did it by trying to work out how many generations he thought he could trace in the Bible that took him back to Adam. For years, sections of the Church of England Bible had annotations besides different events in the Old Testament giving them an actual year based on Usher. Then they decided it was not sustainable either and dropped it.

You're bringing strange new things to my ears Mfewster! I'll have to do some more reading on Einstein... although I don't quite understand how "red shift" enables calculations for the ages of stars/galaxies (unless you already assume that they all came from Big Bang and travelled to their current known position at known speed therefore known distance multiplied by known speed equals time?!), nor why this should necessarily affect satellites? As I said, I'll have to do more reading...

And Bishop Ussher? Yes, Biblical history spans approximately 6,000 years (ie. ~2000 years AD and ~4000 years BC) and begins, not surprisingly, with the beginning of the world! It is impossible to calculate exact dates as most of the information is recorded as "when X was Y years old..." or "in the Zth year of King W...." (ie. it is generally expressed in years, not months and days). There are still Bibles being printed with dates for various events but the dates are always approximate, and many of these are also backed up by secular historical records. I'm interested to know on what grounds Usshers dates were "not sustainable" (other than the impossibility of accurate calculations ie. days/months) and admit that I will have to do more reading on this too...

“You're quoting Christopher Monckton and expect us to take you seriously? This is the same bloke who wanted to solve the AIDS problem by testing every kuman being monthly and rounding up each and every sufferer and sending them off into life long quarantine. That is to say creating "Leper Colonies".”

It’s interesting that you should bring up THAT issue Mr Best Off Road and many others who also say “I'd rather place my faith in the Medical Profession, Scientists and Pharmatologists ... than sit a stooped position with my hands clasped together talking to the ceiling hoping for help.”

Monckton’s suggestion would certainly be effective although I agree, highly undesirable. I guess a lot of it boils down to how seriously you view the AIDS problem...

But do you have a better suggestion while we wait for your "faith in the Medical Profession, Scientists and Pharmatologists [sic]" (perhaps you mean Pharmacists) to propose an effective solution?

Perhaps I could suggest (I emphasise: not “thrust upon you” but gently suggest) a policy such as: “Don’t sleep with anyone other than your one lifetime spouse of the opposite sex”. (Yes, that means: not sleeping with animals, people of the same sex, multiple partners, etc.) It would essentially solve the AIDS problem within a single generation (as well as many other problems) without the need for “Leper Colonies” or big spending in, so-far, unproductive scientific research*. Of course it’s not my idea, and there are no points for guessing where it comes from.

* That is not to say or imply that ALL scientific research is a waste of money, but on this issue there is a simpler and more effective ‘cure’ already available.

sounds lke a far more sensible thing to do than trade emissions credits