Man made global warming - the debate is far from over!!

[Guest]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1225837229301

EVIDENCE that human activity is causing global warming is much stronger than previously stated and is found in all parts of the world, according to a study that attempts to refute claims from sceptics.

The "fingerprints" of human influence on the climate can be detected not just in rising temperatures but in the saltiness of the oceans, rising humidity, changes in rainfall and the shrinking of Arctic Sea ice at the rate of 600,000sq km a decade.
__________________________________________________ ______________

Despite the ramblings of the conspiracy theorists, actual scientific research is still being done on this topic and that research points to the climate being detrimentally influenced by man.

Now if rcptn can come up with 100 peer reviewed papers that says it's all a big conspiracy...

The actual report is here
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/j...123201100/home

Chook.

[Guest]

So Rudd and Wong lie when they say "The science is settled" and "the science is unequivocal"?

[stephenj]

what politician hasnt crossed his/her fingers and told a few porkies? the big ones in recent times being weapons of mass destruction " no gst not ever"

[Guest]

I blame the Duggars for the global warming crisis.

[supermario]

its willie's fault !!!! all that pissing on walls making the water temperature warmer !!!

[novice chook]

I blame the Duggars for the global warming crisis.

That family was so damn perfect it was slightly sickening.

I mean all those kids and they all live in peace and harmony. It's just not normal.

As for global warming, man made or otherwise, who knows what to believe any more. I was always a sceptic of the whole GW issue and continue to be one.


NC

[Guest]

That family was so damn perfect it was slightly sickening.

I mean all those kids and they all live in peace and harmony. It's just not normal.

As for global warming, man made or otherwise, who knows what to believe any more. I was always a sceptic of the whole GW issue and continue to be one.


NC

Sickening and a complete waste of precious resources.

[novice chook]

Sickening and a complete waste of precious resources.

Have to agree. But each to their own I suppose. They seem happy enough and at least they don't appear to be bludging off any government to support them.


NC

[Guest]

So Rudd and Wong lie when they say "The science is settled" and "the science is unequivocal"?

Is it comprehension you have problem with or are you just burying your head up your arse to ignore what these scientists are saying?

When will you admit you were wrong about all this eh? When are you going to fess up and admit your conspiracy theory bullshit is just that all bullshit????

Thanks for confirming your zero credibility with regards to this topic.

Chook.

[stephenj]

it will always be willies fault, the world is his urinal!

[Andrew Walker]

we are doomed the end is niegh

[Guest]

Uh oh rcptn, looks like another nail in your big global conspiracy theory.

http://www.csiro.au/resources/State-of-the-Climate.html

Australia’s two lead climate science agencies – the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology - have produced a snapshot of the state of the climate to update Australians about how their climate has changed and what it means.

Changes observed include:

Highly variable rainfall across the country, with substantial increases in rainfall in northern and central parts of Australia, as well as significant decreases across much of southern and eastern Australia.
Rapidly rising sea levels from 1993 to 2009, with levels around Australia rising, between 1.5 and 3mm per year in Australia’s south and east and between 7 and 10mm in the country’s north
__________________________________________________ ______________

Don't worry rcptn, I'm sure you can find a blog with an opinion piece that refutes the CSIRO...but dont' try Andrew Bolt's that farking moron is being hammered.

Chook.

[Guest]

Uh oh rcptn, looks like another nail in your big global conspiracy theory.

http://www.csiro.au/resources/State-of-the-Climate.html

Australia’s two lead climate science agencies – the CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology - have produced a snapshot of the state of the climate to update Australians about how their climate has changed and what it means.

Changes observed include:

Highly variable rainfall across the country, with substantial increases in rainfall in northern and central parts of Australia, as well as significant decreases across much of southern and eastern Australia.
Rapidly rising sea levels from 1993 to 2009, with levels around Australia rising, between 1.5 and 3mm per year in Australia’s south and east and between 7 and 10mm in the country’s north
__________________________________________________ ______________

Don't worry rcptn, I'm sure you can find a blog with an opinion piece that refutes the CSIRO...but dont' try Andrew Bolt's that farking moron is being hammered.

Chook.

The BOM have been caught out cherry picking data in that report to show trends in annual rainfall have been far more variable by only using data going back to 1960 when they have other data going back to 1900 that shows the long term annual rainfall trend is far less radical.

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/the...ers/#more-7745

[Guest]

The BOM have been caught out cherry picking data in that report to show trends in annual rainfall have been far more variable by only using data going back to 1960 when they have other data going back to 1900 that shows the long term annual rainfall trend is far less radical.

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/03/the...ers/#more-7745

I’m not sure what point you are trying to make here, but I’ll assume you (and Joanne) are stating that because the BOM used data showing downward trend variations in annual rainfall that only goes go back to 1960 rather than 1900 (which would have still shown a downward trend with slightly less variations), than the report should be condemned?

Is that what you are trying to say?

Chook.

[Guest]

I’m not sure what point you are trying to make here, but I’ll assume you (and Joanne) are stating that because the BOM used data showing downward trend variations in annual rainfall that only goes go back to 1960 rather than 1900 (which would have still shown a downward trend with slightly less variations), than the report should be condemned?

Is that what you are trying to say?

Chook.

Just pointing out how they cherry pick there data points to create public alarm that is totally unnecessary because since 1900 we have had an increase in annual rainfall.