Church Of Climatology

[XRQTR]

Originally Posted by ST

You do realise he said temperatures would stabilise and sea levels would drop globally?.

Ummmmmmmm if you bother to actually read back over it he said "stop rising" not drop, you may like to check back over your own posts (#45 btw) before you have a go at someone elses.

thanks for coming :

[Cobra]

Anyone watch the 7:30 report last night? Nick Minchen and Tony Abbott should be commended for their efforts in deferring this abominal tax system. And the garbage coming out of turnbulls mouth about climate change was laughable.

[rodderz]

Originally Posted by ltd

BTW, you guys who are interested should really read the article in Rolling Stone about Goldman Sachs (of which Turnbull was a very senior guy at). Makes for interesting reading of one of the driving forces behind global warming/climate change/Rudd tilt for UN/One world Government/New world order/Socialism.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics..._machine/print

Interesting- Turnbull an ex managing director of a firm who has said to be part of the scam. Also approved pulp mills and other projects, bit funny now he's pushing global warming!

[cs123]

Originally Posted by Cobra

Anyone watch the 7:30 report last night? Nick Minchen and Tony Abbott should be commended for their efforts in deferring this abominal tax system. And the garbage coming out of turnbulls mouth about climate change was laughable.

That would depend on your position on the ETS and your beliefs on Global Warming. Abbott and Minchen are to the right, with all the baggage that brings.

For me I haven't spent enough time researching it to understand this complex topic. Turnbull commented that they have been looking at this for years, so any claim that they need more time is probably a lie. They should have made up their mind by now.

Some of the tin foil hat comments in this post are more scary than the extreme leftists views IMO.

From today's Courier Mail, Galaxy Poll
Approve of ETS 56%
Disapprove of ETS 34%
Uncommitted 10%

[Mr Hardware]

Too right cobra, too right. The public knows almost nothing of this extra tax system, and good on Abbott et al for having a backbone on the issue.

[XRQTR]

Peter Costello has a say, this is from the 24th of this month

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/con...9/s2751853.htm

This is good, "Australia the worlds highest CO2 polluter"..... per capita

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...11/2683439.htm

check the figures

If Australia is at 20.58 tonnes per person then that equates to approximately 514.5 million tonnes in total annually.

America would then be at 6.9 billion tonnes per annum as a total figure.

China, well I don't think m y calculator will be able to hold the numbers but let's see.....actually I'm not sure what Chinas current population is ( I doubt they even know for sure LOL) but lets work off of 1.2 billion people, this would give us somewhere around 5.4 billion tonnes annually.

So there you have it, Australia is not even a blip with around 4% of this total figure for pollution being from Australia.

Another example of manipulating figures to suit their agenda.

[olfella]

Originally Posted by cs123

That would depend on your position on the ETS and your beliefs on Global Warming. Abbott and Minchen are to the right, with all the baggage that brings.

For me I haven't spent enough time researching it to understand this complex topic. Turnbull commented that they have been looking at this for years, so any claim that they need more time is probably a lie. They should have made up their mind by now.

Some of the tin foil hat comments in this post are more scary than the extreme leftists views IMO.

From today's Courier Mail, Galaxy Poll
Approve of ETS 56%
Disapprove of ETS 34%
Uncommitted 10%

I too haven't spent enough time researching, but I do have my own views which could change given more information. Questions like why is it being rushed through parliament (sorry Turnbull, if you and Rudd (including Wong have been looking at this then where is the PUBLIC consultation?) What is in the Treaty and what are the ramifications to us poor average joes? If this is such an important matter (and it has impact on our rights under the Constitution) then shouldn't a referendum be held?

[MO]

@olfella,a referendum imo is a must.
A thought on the supposed rising sea levels,we all know that water erodes whaterever it passes over. So is it not fair to say that the oceans are simply eroding the coastline.

[XRQTR]

This is a funny quote for the day

source The Age

Originally Posted by uneducated

A spokeswoman for Climate Change Minister Penny Wong said Australia's ''very high'' per capita emissions demonstrated why it was important to introduce an emissions trading scheme.

''As one of the hottest and driest continents on earth, Australia will be among the hardest and fastest-hit by climate change if we don't act now,'' she said.

I have always been of the belief that due to our vast size that most pollution is captured in our green zones, this would then make most pollution in Australia non existant due to natural carbon sinks/scrubbers.

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by XRQTR

edit: oh ye and CO2 was always mentioned in alot of those early reports, just by the by how old are you, I'm just wondering if you were eben around then.

I can't tell you if I was eben around then, I don't know what eben is. I'm sure it's a typo. For the record I'm a baby boomer, but a gentleman never asks.

If you believe the hole in the ozone layer was a hoax because you have not seen any stories in paper lately, could I suggest a little more research.

[XRQTR]

Originally Posted by MO

@olfella,a referendum imo is a must.
A thought on the supposed rising sea levels,we all know that water erodes whaterever it passes over. So is it not fair to say that the oceans are simply eroding the coastline.

How dare you make such an assumtion, if not for Global Warming the 12 apostles would still be 12, how dare you make a sensible assumption that CC scientists often "forget" to add in their findings.

How very dare you


Also

HA?? WHAT??? WHEN DID THIS HAPPEN???????

US and China Agree on plan

[XRQTR]

Originally Posted by Work Horse

I can't tell you if I was eben around then, I don't know what eben is. I'm sure it's a typo. For the record I'm a baby boomer, but a gentleman never asks.

If you believe the hole in the ozone layer was a hoax because you have not seen any stories in paper lately, could I suggest a little more research.

how very observant of you, if only you had also obsreved the other posts not long after mine relating to this issue and not simply honed in on mine on the basis that I quoted you, you might actually find that people have done the research. See that's what a community does, it helps each other.

And to assume I'm a gentleman, how very dare you

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by MRFGXR6

Work Horse, ....

Edit to save space

.......our generations billions.

Thank you for taking the time to post a response MRFGXR6.

We will have to agree to disagree about the hole in the ozone layer.

I can not argue with your views about who is behind "climate change". There are too many conspiracy theories in there for my little brain to get a handle on.

[XRQTR]

Originally Posted by Work Horse

There are too many conspiracy theories in there for my little brain to get a handle on.

It's good to see you can look at your self in a constructive manner and admit to your short comings :

[MO]

Originally Posted by XRQTR

How dare you make such an assumtion, if not for Global Warming the 12 apostles would still be 12, how dare you make a sensible assumption that CC scientists often "forget" to add in their findings.

How very dare you


Also

HA?? WHAT??? WHEN DID THIS HAPPEN???????

US and China Agree on plan

I dare because I can and I will not swallow what is thrown at me by alarmists.
Therefore I make no apology and shall continue to question those above me for they have a lot to answer for with all this claptrap.

[XRQTR]

Here's yet another "per capita" finding on CO2 emmiters by Richard Littlemore.



The top 10 emitters, on a per capita basis, are:

1. Qatar 53.1 metric tonnes per person per year

2. Trinidad and Tobago 31.9

3. Bahrain 30.6

4. United Arab Emirates 25.1

5. Kuwait 24.6

6. Luxembourg 21.1

7. United States 20.1

8. Australia 18.3

9. Brunei Darussalam 17.7

10. Canada 16.5


Now lets put that into perspective


The same emitters, on a total basis, are:

1. Qatar 53.1 metric tonnes per person per year

Qatar have a population of 1,409,000 which equates to 74,814,900 tonnes total

2. Trinidad and Tobago 31.9

Trin. and Tob have a population of 1,339,000, so that's 42,714,100

3. Bahrain 30.6

Bahrain have 791,000, so from here we get 24,204,600

4. United Arab Emirates 25.1

UAE 4,599,000, equating to 115,434,900

5. Kuwait 24.6

pop. 2,985,000, poll. 73,431,000

6. Luxembourg 21.1

pop. 493,500, poll 10,412,850

7. United States 20.1

pop. 308,034,000, poll 6,191,483,400 .... that's billion

8. Australia 18.3

pop 22,071,000, poll 403,899,300

9. Brunei Darussalam 17.7

pop. 400,000, poll. 7,080,000

10. Canada 16.5

pop. 33,858,000, poll. 558,657,000

So even though a country like Luxemberg actually contributes less than 0.165% the total number of the US they are actually placed just above them on this scale on a "per capita" basis.

Anyone else get the feeling the US has had something to do with the way in which these figures are being displayed for the public.

In my previous similar post the US actually pollutes more than China in a total value, and yet they have around 1/4 of the population of China, which by the way is 1,334,380,000.



* population figures have been sourced from wikipedia

[olfella]

Just had a reread of what Costello had to say and it makes sense. "the ETS will be around for 10, 20 ,30 or 40 years. I'd make sure that we get it right for Australia". "Well I'd like to know what the big emitters are doing because if the issue of course is to affect global emissions, what Australia does won't affect global emissions. What China does will affect global emissions. What the US does will effect global emissions so I would like to know".

I would also like to know Peter.

[Laminge]

Gentlemen

Watch your replies, I am!

[XRQTR]

Also it should be noted on my last post that those figures are from a Sep 2006 report but are relevant with regard to how "per capita" data is used to fudge figures around while keeping it statiscally correct.

The latest "data" I think was Oct/Noc this year is that now we, yes that's right Australia are the "World's biggest emitter of pollution", so now that you know just how these figures are extracted to show whatever they want you to see, maybe, just maybe now you will see the "conspiracy" you seem to doubt so much.

Time and time again it's shown to you that alot of the "science" that goes into CC science is nothing more than random figures or even altered figures allowing the "right" result but not the correct one.

You make us out to be total denialists, yet time and time again we agree that we are making an impact but we simply choose to question just how much seeing as the answers don't seem to make any sense.

I'll bet you guys went out and bought new computers when you were told your old one wouldn't work after Y2K, didn't you, come on, it's ok, you're amongst friends here, you can tell us.

[MO]

@xrqtr,keep it coming champ, love your ammunition. Now of course the alarmists will scurry to mess with some more data etc. If only ppl would question it all.

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by XRQTR

how very observant of you, if only you had also obsreved the other posts not long after mine relating to this issue and not simply honed in on mine on the basis that I quoted you, you might actually find that people have done the research. See that's what a community does, it helps each other.

And to assume I'm a gentleman, how very dare you

I responded to your post first because you responded first, is there anything you can not find a conspiracy theory in?

Actually I think we're onto something here! A new pandemic sweeping the globe, "Hyper sensitive conspiracy theory disorder"!

We'll get the scientific community on board because we know they will say anything for research funding. They are all in it for the money and have no integrity or life long commitment to their area of special interest.

Big business will back us because they will make a fortune selling various cures and preventatives.

Governments will use fear campaigns claiming we need to vote them in to be saved form it.

It's writing its self!!

I've got the naming rights, but I'll split the conference circulate royalties with you. :evil3:

[xtremerus]

Per Capita statistics are BS. It's the total that goes in the air that is important, is it not.
Which car/s should be conviscated and crushed in the name of Climatology?
One XWGT driven 1000 Km/yr, or 1000 Corollas that are driven 30,000 km/yr each.
Thinking people know which produces the most total pollution. A GW fanatic would target the other one.

[olfella]

Recent quote I found from Longs notes
If it can't be expressed in figures, it is not science; it is opinion.

[Airmon]

Originally Posted by XRQTR

This is good, "Australia the worlds highest CO2 polluter"..... per capita

check the figures

If Australia is at 20.58 tonnes per person then that equates to approximately 514.5 million tonnes in total annually.

America would then be at 6.9 billion tonnes per annum as a total figure.

China, well I don't think m y calculator will be able to hold the numbers but let's see.....actually I'm not sure what Chinas current population is ( I doubt they even know for sure LOL) but lets work off of 1.2 billion people, this would give us somewhere around 5.4 billion tonnes annually.

So there you have it, Australia is not even a blip with around 4% of this total figure for pollution being from Australia.

Another example of manipulating figures to suit their agenda.

Mate you are very right, they are manipulating the figures, and I read a similar article from a while ago also from the UK. They add the word "Western", to make Australia the worst polluters per capita in the "western world". They forget to mention the countries far worse then us.

I did a quick search then, as you stated we're the 8th worst based on 2006 Data. When I quoted that we were 12th worst in the world, that was based on 2006 data aswell from a few sources, one of which was Wikipedia which is a little different now.
Either way here is where I got my Data.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...-person-capita
There doesn't seem to be a single definitive source.

So as you demostrated we are not the worst in the world, we are not huge polluters overall. But this is being used to pressure our government into acting. And its working, as was posted, the opinion polls in the Age show the majority of Australians are for the ETS, and its manipulated articles like the previous that inform their decisions.

But still, just because we are less then 4% of global emissions does not give us a right to be ignorant of it. We still need to take care of our environment to a degree, but this isn't it.

I brought this up in another, similar thread, but I will say it again. Another adverse effect of the build up of Cabon dioxide in the atmosphere is the increase in Carbolic acid in our oceans. As most CO2 is absorbed by the ocean.
There have been studies that show that the shell thickness in various encrustation has been decreasing as the levels of acid increase (very, very small increases mind you).

[Cobra]

Originally Posted by cs123

That would depend on your position on the ETS and your beliefs on Global Warming. Abbott and Minchen are to the right, with all the baggage that brings.

For me I haven't spent enough time researching it to understand this complex topic. Turnbull commented that they have been looking at this for years, so any claim that they need more time is probably a lie. They should have made up their mind by now.

Some of the tin foil hat comments in this post are more scary than the extreme leftists views IMO.

From today's Courier Mail, Galaxy Poll
Approve of ETS 56%
Disapprove of ETS 34%
Uncommitted 10%

Yeah that's fair enough. I havn't spent enough time researching it to completely understand this complex topic either. I'm not a scientist, and no one man, whether he/she be a scientist or not, will either. It will be a collective collaboration of research which will find out truth.

But I do not think that is what's been happening at the moment, as it would appear as though, according to those leaked emails at least, there's an agenda driven ploy to stifle any release of research to dismiss the correlation of human activity to global warming.

My biggest concern is that once this ETS is put in place, it can't be overturned. The ramifications of the WTS will be massive to our country and that's a fact. All for what? It won't acheive a thing unless every other major polluting country signs it an adhears to it.

If you actually watched the 7:30 report last night, depending on whether you've got blinkers on or not, turnbull was not trying to validate his reasonings for being for the ETS with any scientific proof that Global Warming is man made, but rather when prompted into justifying his position, rather chose to pull at the heart strings of the audience by saying it's about our children, and our childrens children.

As for your poll, it's certainly interesting, but polls are all about opinions. We all know what opinions resemble, a human orifice which everyone possesses. Vfacts says more poeple buy Holdens than Fords, but we all dismiss that as your avergare punter being uneducated in this field. I would hazard a guess that even less percentage of people who voted on that newspaper poll are educated enough about the ETS to make an informed decision as motorists who've purchased either Ford or Holden, or any other vehicle for that matter.

[XRQTR]

Originally Posted by Work Horse

Actually I think we're onto something here! A new pandemic sweeping the globe, "Hyper sensitive conspiracy theory disorder"!

You should be commended on the job you're doing holding up the fort while all your supporters find more evidence...... oh hang on it's just pretty much you in this and other similar threads that seems to be spouting "conspiracy theory" at every post.

You know what I find most enjoyable is watching people such as yourself who believe what they're told and march along like all the other good little lambs that are the first to call "conspiracy theory".

Not one person that questions any of this "science" had yet used that word to my recollection, they have accused the "scientists" of lieing, or manipulation of data (which is as good as proven now : ) or that something just isn't right. Not one of them has called it a conspiracy, I could be wrong and I'm sure you'll probably go to great length to find such a quote from one of the posts.

Is it just that you're scared of the truth?? Kind of like the "poofter bashers" (sorry if that word offends) that were said to be scared of being homosexual themselves so instead tried to prove their allegiance to the straight community by bashing gays. I mean it's really quite similar, to quote Shakespeare "Thou doth protest too much me thinks".

And because I'm one of the most vocal it's easier to point your arguments at me, not because I was first to post, you obviously read through the rest to realise that there were other posts. But it's like the old battles, take out the leader, or in this case discredit him and the others will crumble. Well unfortunately there is no leader, as soon as one man drops another will take his place.

We believe strongly in what we are saying, no doubt just as you do, however we like you also believed what we'd been told at one time, until of course some things just didn't add up. We asked why, we looked for reasons, none were available but the truth is slowly coming to the surface, trouble is when it does finally come fully out it might be too late to turn back from knee jerk reactions. What's wrong with a little bit of discussion and allowing the public some knowledge into what exactly is involved within the treaty, why if you have nothing to hide you don't have full or even partial disclosure.

Why??

Scholars will ruin this world, thinkers will get it back.

[cs123]

Originally Posted by Cobra

If you actually watched the 7:30 report last night, depending on whether you've got blinkers on or not, turnbull was not trying to validate his reasonings for being for the ETS with any scientific proof that Global Warming is man made, but rather when prompted into justifying his position, rather chose to pull at the heart strings of the audience by saying it's about our children, and our childrens children.

Yup, watched it start to finish. If you put that quote into the context of other things he has said like the speech he made Wednesday night is the the earth deserves the benefit of the doubt, that is if we err on the side of doing nothing about pollution we could well be causing major problems for the planet that can't be undone.

Like I said before, this complex topic of climate change is difficult for me to grasp currently and I don't think I'm alone. What I am sure of is that our consumption of resources and pollution will need to be reined in sooner or later. We cannot continue down this path forever.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by cs123

Like I said before, this complex topic of climate change is difficult for me to grasp currently and I don't think I'm alone. What I am sure of is that our consumption of resources and pollution will need to be reined in sooner or later. We cannot continue down this path forever.

And I don't think anyone disagrees with you. However, it's the ETS/CPRS which is in dispute. There is no means of reducing CO2 output with the bills, more so just a means of buying more credits to pollute the atmosphere. The bills refer to reduction targets but that is all what they are. Targets. One does not have to meet the targets set.

Those who watched Turnball on the 730 report could compare his performance to his performance when he attempted to sell the Republic idea. The model(s) put forward are not supported by the party and the public.

[StAndArdAU]

Originally Posted by MRFGXR6

In fact the inventors of hydrogen energy seemed to die. This happen to a man by the name of Stanley Meyer, he made a hydrogen fuel system for a VW buggy and soon after wound up deceased.

This man you speak of, his fuel system has never been proven. and it never will be as its theoretical operation violates the first and second laws of thermodynamics, essentially operating as a perpetual motion machine. C'mon, the bloke was crazy. his patents are available on the net. still not even a backyard scientist has made one.

Got that from a quick Wiki search (and before you say, "dont believe everything you read on the internet, i'll bet thats where you and almost all of the pro & anti-ETS are getting their information).

BTW, this isnt a personal attack. i'd gladly welcome some more info on this.

[Mr Hardware]

Don't forget this:
http://www.excelerate.com.au/downloa...esentation.pps