Goings on in Oz (now with 100% more Zombie Armageddon!)

By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics and access other forums reserved for members. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today by clicking here.

Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 6:57 am

a better place to understand the evolving science of co2 and climate change would be [here]

Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 9:37 am

Or here:

http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/

Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 10:08 am

Uh, guys - let's not get this thread locked...

Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 10:47 am

^^ Considering that the "Climate Change" movement is practically already a faith based religion (tautology?), the rule about posts on religion may come into play.

Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 10:56 am

^ Which one? Pro or anti?

Baiting Guru Joined: 19 Apr 2007 Posts: 3123

r2d2 wrote:

a better place to understand the evolving science of co2 and climate change would be [here]

Or what about here?

http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

We can bleat on all day with our differing evidence, it's like Sir Cumfrence says. You either believe it or you don't.

Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 1:55 pm

What I want to solve in this thread is the real threat of a zombie armageddon. Little do any of you know that global warming will eventually be the catalyst to this nightmare. I would point you to some links but some farmer up a pole is threatening to starve unless the story is covered up by a secret society of Dingo worshiping monks here in Australia.

Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 3:00 pm

The cure for zombie armageddon would be frowned upon by "greenies". We all know the cure is full auto rifles, shotguns, blunt instruments and LARGE bonfires.

I just want to point out that our ever lovin' scientific gurus, who think they can determine what a 3 zillion year old planet should be like, seem to forget their own when they talk about "climate change". What I mean is the proven data that this planet was tropical all over for a very long time. Lets remember the fallen, the dinosaurs and before them the various prehistoric fish, and we cannot forget the forests that now give is vast oil deposits.

Now unless they have invented time travel and placed a few weather stations to gather data in the past they have no presedence to attempt to quantify actual climactic change othere than for the period in which they have data. Please don't fall back on ice coring, we all know those ice packs have not been there long enough either. Melting ice? Why no sea level rise? Great lakes have actually been down since the great melt! Maybe the water from the melt is going intoa huge fissure in the earth cooling the core which cause the dead to rise bringing about zombie armageddon!!!

For the record, I don't think this to be political exchange. This is scientific deliberation, unless of course the followers of "climate change" call me a heretic and attempt a burning at the stake (which would be contrary and they would have to find a way to cover their "carbon footprint").

As for my local region, weather has returned to what I remember as a child. the last 3 winters have been normal. Before that there was a noticeable dry spell during winter but still cold. Being nearer to the Arctic, shouldn't things be feeling warmer? Can anyone explain or hypothesize how the fact of the bearing land bridge and the evidence of its flora and fauna during a great ice age and how it relates to the theory (that's what it is, not fact) of "climate change"?

I have not yet read Nurse Nasty's new bait, am I wrong for that? Should I wait for the movie, or Cliff's notes?

Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 6:11 pm

Slightlyoutofit wrote:

Or here:
http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/

which version of the channel 4 documentary are you referring to?
the original TV version, or the DVD version which corrected some of the errors they made?
such as misidentifying 17% of their contributors. Laughing

thoroughness and integrity were not this programme's strong points.
at least channel4 apologised afterwards for some of the many blunders,
but audiences tend to remember the programme and not the subsequent apologies and retractions.

about the original post...
i found (without any difficulty) a media report from before xmas about this...

Quote:

He has received a letter from the Agriculture Minister, Tony Burke, on behalf of the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd. It details compensation options [but] his supporter Alastair McRobert says he will not open it

@badgerbait - you are quite right that the earth has been much hotter than it is today,
but you're overlooking the fact that sea level would rise by many tens of metres if we return to such conditions.
bad news for cities like london, new york, shanghai, etc, and hugely expensive for any nation with a coastline.

ice core data goes back 400,000 years, through four complete glacial cycles.
they provide proof for a strong correlation between temperature and co2 levels.
but today's co2 levels are much higher than the highest level reached in any recent ice age.

i'm not sure what your point is about the bering land bridge and ice ages,
but you might be interested in [this animation]
i think two further points might be relevant.
1- climate change will not cause temperatures to rise everywhere or rapidly (probably), so your recent local experience is not a good guide.
2- climate has changed naturally for billions of years, and no one is suggesting that we can (or should) attempt to control that.
the argument is about mankind's contribution to climate change, which (most scientists think) will causes temperatures and sea levels to rise drastically if we don't do something, along with other undesirable effects.

even if the science is wrong (which is unlikely - the fundamental relationship between co2 and temperature was settled 25 years ago), can we afford to risk it (now that's a question which is worth discussing)?

Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 6:34 pm

r2d2 wrote:

Slightlyoutofit wrote:

Or here:
http://www.greatglobalwarmingswindle.co.uk/

which version of the channel 4 documentary are you referring to?
the original TV version, or the DVD version which corrected some of the errors they made?

After careful consideration, I've decided I care even less than I did when I originally posted the link - ie: not at all.

Baiting Guru Joined: 19 Apr 2007 Posts: 3123

Quote:

thoroughness and integrity were not this programme's strong points.

Nor for Mr Gore's piece. He changed so many decent people into livid Greenpeace hippies, he should be shot for it. There are at least 11 factual errors in his piece, not to mention his own admission that CO2 isn't actually to blame.

But carry on trying to save the world. Everything you do, I do the opposite, and with greater intensity. Just today, I bought a 20L gerrycan for burning stuff on the move.

Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 6:38 pm

*sigh*

It was always gonna end this way.

Baiting Guru Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 18313

Craig, this is why we can't have nice things. Crying or Very sad

You have a PM, I'm putting you to work.

Baiting Guru Joined: 19 Apr 2007 Posts: 3123

I've just died. Thanks, Slightly. Evil or Very Mad

Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 7:02 pm

No you haven't. You're still typing.

Prove you've died by not posting for a month.
Then, and only then, will I believe you.

BTW. If you do die, you've got plenty of gas in your jerrycan for a good cremation.

Baiting Guru Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 18313

Craig: Just walk away. Don't make me go find your "I'll be Craig lite with no egg on my face" post. Wink

Baiting Guru Joined: 19 Apr 2007 Posts: 3123

Gah. To fuck with that! I've asked for this thread to be closed, then it is, then it's opened again. Christ.

I'll be out back burning stuff for the next 20 mins or so.

Baiting Guru Joined: 03 May 2007 Posts: 18313

Trying to make us lock it again? Laughing

You can just behave yourself and walk away, I'm sure of it. Wink

Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 7:11 pm

Craig007 wrote:

I'll be out back burning stuff for the next 20 mins or so.

Remember: they can identify you by your dental records.

Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 7:44 pm

Dry leaves and pine needles covered in waste oil Craig? Wink

I'll throw a couch on my next campfire for ya!

I would like it a bit warmer and would not miss the ice caps (still haven't been proven about water level increase, satisfactorally). Seems most water levels are decreasing. With that occurring, and the caps melting we could postulate the water is being turned to vapor. Increased temperature and water vapor % in the atmosphere = tropical climate levels.

I like to look at the fact that life has survived multiple extinction events and survived by adaptation without human intervention (positive or negative). The Bering Strait query was just throwing something out there that seems to have been overlooked regarding the ice age occurring at the same time the bridge existed.

Ice coring samples still do not reflect anything greater thatn the period you mention r2. Also the data element found in them can be corrupted by trasferrance during analysis. They still don't look at the whole geo picture, climate change from beginning to now. The earth is going to do its own thing as is the sun, which does emit a lot of heat and radiation at intervals consistant with climate change.

Craig lite, is that with a twist of lemon? LOL_sign

I don't think I would want to have Craig any other way.

Baiting Guru Joined: 19 Apr 2007 Posts: 3123

http://members.419eater.com/~craig007/Photo0057.jpg

That's my gerrycan.

And this is my very first anti-AGW burn, back in 2003:

Nothing makes me happier.

Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 8:32 pm

Badgerbait wrote:

still haven't been proven about water level increase, satisfactorally

not true - water expands when it gets warmer or cooler than 4degrees centigrade. see [wikipedia]
if the earth warms up, sea levels will rise - it is a basic physical property of water.
expansion of the water that is already in the world's oceans could be just as important as melting ice sheets.

Quote:

Seems most water levels are decreasing

i don't know where you live, but that is not true worldwide - globally they are slowly rising.
you may have some special local conditions, for example land rising or falling.
fx, england is sinking slowly, whereas mainland scotland is rising - these phenomena are nothing to do with global sea levels.

Quote:

With that occurring, and the caps melting we could postulate the water is being turned to vapor. Increased temperature and water vapor % in the atmosphere = tropical climate levels.

it's true that amounts of atmospheric water vapour will change with temperature,
but like i said earlier it's the sea level rise that should mainly concern us.
that, plus the possible increased number & severity of hurricanes (which feed off warm water)

Quote:

The Bering Strait query was just throwing something out there that seems to have been overlooked regarding the ice age occurring at the same time the bridge existed.

this hasn't been overlooked, and it is not a coincidence that the land bridge occurs at the same time as an ice age.
ice ages lock up so much water that sea levels drop 100+m, which exposes the land bridge.
when the ice age ends, the water melts, sea level rises, and the land bridge disappears under water. rinse and repeat

Quote:

Ice coring samples still do not reflect anything greater that the period you mention r2. Also the data element found in them can be corrupted by trasferrance during analysis. They still don't look at the whole geo picture, climate change from beginning to now. The earth is going to do its own thing as is the sun, which does emit a lot of heat and radiation at intervals consistant with climate change.

for estimates of co2 which don't rely on ice cores, there are a range of other techniques, which go back much further.
fx, an interesting one relies on the fact that the structures of certain plant leaves (fx, magnolia) change depending on co2 concentrations.
when paleontologist and plant biologists study fossils, they can estimate the co2 concentration and temperature when the fossil was laid down.
there are other techniques that rely on chemistry.

did you read http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm ?
you should - it addresses the points you're making.

Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 8:56 pm

Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 9:14 pm

Quote:

This is scientific deliberation, unless of course the followers of "climate change" call me a heretic and attempt a burning at the stake (which would be contrary and they would have to find a way to cover their "carbon footprint").

The funny thing is, outside a Michael Crichton novel, I don't think anyone expressing scepticism about climate change has ever been murdered for that reason. In fact the whole climate change discussion has been pretty much free of violence.

I was going to suggest more certain ways of guaranteeing martyrdom, but they'd breach a couple of forum rules.

Posted: Mon Jan 04, 2010 10:28 pm

Meanwhile, back on topic

http://www.news.com.au/national/mass-rally-for-pole-sitting-hunger-striker-peter-spencer/story-e6frfkvr-1225815790482

Walk away Craig, NOW.

Goings on in Oz (now with 100% more Zombie Armageddon!)	View next topic View previous topic