Australian Politics Forum | |
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
Political Parties >> Liberal Party >> The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1291776161 Message started by Greens_Win on Dec 8th, 2010 at 12:42pm |
Title: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Greens_Win on Dec 8th, 2010 at 12:42pm
Beach protection may carry price tag of $700m
Preserving Sydney's beaches against rising sea levels could cost more than $700 million over the next 50 years http://www.smh.com.au/environment/water-issues/beach-protection-may-carry-price-tag-of-700m-20101207-18ogg.html If Liberals where such great economic managers, which they are not, why didn't they act on climate change early. Look at the Federal mess they caused with the murray darling river system, during the time they were in power. Imagine the mess state Liberals will do in NSW if they win a sure bet election in three months. Surely, NSW voters realise voting Labor is a waste so should back Greens in NSW to give Liberals some competition to their no action on climate change plan ... which will cost the State dearly. Greens for Climate Action |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Andrei.Hicks on Dec 8th, 2010 at 12:46pm
The best part about the Liberal party's opposition to the carbon tax is that everyday, Australian families will have more in their budget to pay for their bills.
Energy bills are lower with no carbon tax. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by bwood1946 on Dec 8th, 2010 at 12:47pm ____ wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 12:42pm:
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by sprintcyclist on Dec 8th, 2010 at 12:50pm greens_lose - aussie creates 2% of the worlds pollution. even if we cut our pollution by 100% , to make 0 % it'ld make no difference to the globe ocean levels. perhaps if you stopped exhaling it'ld help :-) |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Greens_Win on Dec 8th, 2010 at 12:58pm Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 12:46pm:
Will they be? Got any proof. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Greens_Win on Dec 8th, 2010 at 1:01pm Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 12:50pm:
Yet if we lead in becoming a Green sustainable economy then we will reap the financial reward of a booming economy. Something other economies will copy. So if we cut our pollution, everyone else will follow. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by bwood1946 on Dec 8th, 2010 at 1:03pm ____ wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 1:01pm:
Got any proof >:( |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by skippy. on Dec 8th, 2010 at 1:06pm ____ wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 1:01pm:
What? and lead the world in renewable industries?, and create a renewable industry that can supply the world in product and technology?, NAH, the rightarded sheeple will never buy such forward thinking logic. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Greens_Win on Dec 8th, 2010 at 1:08pm bwood1946 wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 1:03pm:
Economics Green energy is cheaper than polluting energy when all costs are included. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by sprintcyclist on Dec 8th, 2010 at 1:10pm greens_lose - Quote:
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA - the world will follow us, no matter what we do ? where did you get this ruddcomplex from ???? |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Andrei.Hicks on Dec 8th, 2010 at 1:12pm
I would be quite happy for us to continue to use coal and oil.
Both are cheaper. We all know and recognize we need more oil. The key is to continue ti increase the search and exploration and refine better methods of of-shore drilling for it. At the end of the day, all of us would like us to find more oil. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Greens_Win on Dec 8th, 2010 at 1:14pm Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 1:10pm:
When individual self greed isn't the major driver, as it is with some right wingnut thinking, then the path followed is the path best for the economy and all within that economy. When another economy out performs, other economies learn and adapt their to benefit. For the right claiming to be economic managers, they sure are a little rusty on economics. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by aussiefree2ride on Dec 8th, 2010 at 1:16pm ____ wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 1:08pm:
If you factor enough fantasy into your equations. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Greens_Win on Dec 8th, 2010 at 1:20pm Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 1:12pm:
What are the total climate change costs of coal? What are the total monetary health costs of coal? What is the financial cost of environmental damage caused by coal? What is the financial damage coal has and will inflict onto Australian agriculture? What is the financial damage coal has and will inflict onto our tourist industry. What is the financial damage coal has and will inflict onto our fishing industry. Come on Andrei, If you can not answer any of these questions then you can not claim coal to be cheaper than any other energy source. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by skippy. on Dec 8th, 2010 at 1:21pm Quote:
I wouldn't, why continue using a product that pollutes our environment when we could be using much better options? and its only going to get worse, even though you'd prefer India and China to stay third world, your bubble is about to burst, and when it does oil will no doubt get even more expensive. Why not use the many other options, like NATURAL GAS, solar and others that haven't even been tested yet ?because its all just too easy to keep invading middle east countries for their oil resources. You do know that will run out much sooner than later as well, don't you? paticularly since in the next ten to twenty years the likes of China and India will increase the oil useage by at least double of that today. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Greens_Win on Dec 8th, 2010 at 1:24pm aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 1:16pm:
Ditto to the questions I asked andrei about coal. If the NSW and Federal Liberals want to keep the Australian economy chained to coal electricity, what is the true total financial price of this stupidity. Green Renewable Electricity is cheaper than deathly coal electricity when all costs are included. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by codswal on Dec 8th, 2010 at 1:24pm ____ wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 12:42pm:
I HAVE SWORN OFF OZPOLITICS. THE MINDLESS ONE UPMANSHIP KIND OF GOT THE BETTER OF ME.. HOWEVER WOODIES LATEST RAVE GOT ME THINKING... this is something I wouldnt want to miss... better than OPRAH! WHEN CAN I EXPECT THE "SECOND COMING" OF BOBBY ON THE BEACH IN HIS LONG ROBES.. TURNING BACK THE TIDE AND LOWERING THE SEA LEVELS.. woody I cant bare the thought of missing that event, he has soooo much power..I promise I will be on the beach days before the happening..I will even turn Green..when and where thats all I want to know.. thankyou! |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Greens_Win on Dec 8th, 2010 at 1:29pm codswal wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 1:24pm:
Yes, Oprah might give you a car ... or a holiday in a foreign land yet Bob Brown's Greens gives us all hope. I look forward to you becoming A Greens supporter Codswal, when you wake from your sleep in the near future. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Andrei.Hicks on Dec 8th, 2010 at 1:32pm ____ wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 1:29pm:
No thanks. I'd rather have the car than Bob's hope. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by codswal on Dec 8th, 2010 at 2:12pm ____ wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 1:29pm:
woody I LOOK FORWARD TO YOU ANSWERING A QUESTION.. WHEN WILL BOB BE ON THE BEACH TO MAKE THIS WONDERFUL FURTURE FOR EV ERYONE.. LIKE TURNING BAC K THE TIDE.. THAT YOU CLAIM THE LIBS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR FOR?????????????? all I want is a sensible answer!!!!! as you know in advance what will happen if the Libs get back in... then you must know of bobs second coming I do appreciate that it was J.C. that the second coming refers too.. but I am not sure that Bob does!!!!!!!!. you do realise I said I would only turn Green if Bob turns the tide back dont you???>...just checking! as we {libs] can do so much damage in suich a short time... I know we can depend on Super Bob to be equally up to changing things in Super quick time. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by codswal on Dec 8th, 2010 at 2:16pm
No thanks.
I'd rather have the car than Bob's hope andrei I would give up EVERYTHING to see BOB on the beach in his robes.. turning back the TIDE.. and I dont believe you wouldnt either! all non believers would be there.. I can vouch for it. the question is can Woody??????... can he give us a date and day and time..for this happening!! that is the question dear Yorcik, that IS the question! |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by chicken_lipsforme on Dec 8th, 2010 at 2:22pm ____ wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 12:42pm:
I don't think the Liberal party as a whole watch science fiction Green. In fact, they would leave that to others. Namely the Green Party or the Tooth Fairy Party. That's why they didn't act on climate change, deadly asteroids striking the Earth, or Godzilla re-awakening from his secret lair on that unknown Pacific Island and romperstomping Tokyo once more. And the mess with the Murray Darling region has everything to do with a long term drought that hopefully is at an end, and not the actions or otherwise of any political party. The sea levels are exactly where they are supposed to be, and there is no evidence at all that our beaches are 'dissappearing' or our islands are sinking. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Greens_Win on Dec 8th, 2010 at 3:29pm codswal wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 2:12pm:
oh you are serious cod. perhaps you require an even longer rest ... with prescribed medication. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by gizmo_2655 on Dec 8th, 2010 at 4:19pm ____ wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 1:01pm:
In response to THAT, I'll refer you to one of YOUR own threads... http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1291012858 |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Greens_Win on Dec 8th, 2010 at 4:44pm gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 4:19pm:
Apple ~ Oranges Did countries follow Britain's Industrial Revolution? |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Greens_Win on Dec 8th, 2010 at 4:51pm chicken_lipsforme wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 2:22pm:
The Howard Government was told it would cost $4 Billion to repair the Murray Darling Basin when Howard came to office ... Howard then ignored the Murray Darling for the next 12 years. The current mess is all the Liberal Party's fault. Now the Neo Con Liberal Party Wing are out to do the same thing with climate change. The only differences is it will effect every Australian even more than the Liberal party Murray Darling Basin mess. Liberals can not claim to be economic managers since sticking your head in the sand is not a viable form of economics. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 8th, 2010 at 4:55pm
Has Climate Change been proved, or is this an assumption that is meant to be automatically accepted, no proof required.
|
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Greens_Win on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:00pm Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 4:55pm:
Climate Change ... or Human Caused Climate Change? |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:02pm ____ wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:00pm:
Don't you know what the Greens policy is? |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Greens_Win on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:04pm Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:02pm:
I will repeat ... so read it slow Do you mean climate change or human caused climate change? |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:06pm ____ wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:04pm:
Oh I understood your question, but I don't think you understood your own question. So I'll repeat so please read it slow. Don't you know what the Greens policy is? |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Greens_Win on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:11pm
You asked if there is proof of climate change
Answer : Yes |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:13pm ____ wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:11pm:
Where is this proof? |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Greens_Win on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:15pm Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:13pm:
4.6 billion years of changing climate Game, Set and Match. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:18pm ____ wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:15pm:
My mistake, I actually thought you understood the issue and that you had confused your questions. You just don't understand the issue of climate change at all. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Greens_Win on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:22pm Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:18pm:
I asked you to differ between climate change and human caused climate change ... and you refused a number of times. You lose. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:23pm ____ wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:22pm:
So you were trying to be stupid. I don't think you need to try, you're very gifted in that department. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:25pm ____ wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:22pm:
Those that are more up to date with the issue of climate change know that the term used is "man-made" climate change. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Greens_Win on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:29pm Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:23pm:
So you revert to childish games to try and cover your mistake. You had the opportunity to clarify your question ... yet as revealed above. You don't know what you are talking about. Climate change has been proven ... 4.6 billion years of earth's history Human caused climate change has been proven by human cause deforestation. Neo Cons denying Human Caused Climate Change is on par with Neo Cons denying Gravity. Liberals are the worst party for economic management since they can't even adcmit they are wrong over climate change so wrong over the economic handling of climate change. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Greens_Win on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:32pm Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:25pm:
So you are a sexist Liberal Party Supporter. Women make up around half the population of humanity. Are you saying women don't drive cars, use electricity or consume. It is human caused climate change to the non sexist world. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:33pm ____ wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:32pm:
As posted before, you really don't need to try so hard to make stupid comments. You are naturally gifted in that department. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:35pm
When will the greens prove that Climate Change actually exists.
|
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Greens_Win on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:39pm Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:35pm:
It has already been proven re read this thread ... added suggestion : very slowly so it might sink in. Do you pretend to be so slow ... i hope you are pretending otherwise you would be a good argument for why parenting should be licensed and restricted between brothers and sisters. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:42pm ____ wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:39pm:
So that is a No then. The greens are unable to prove that Climate Change exists. That's ok as that's a common consensus. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Greens_Win on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:46pm Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:42pm:
Climate change is proven 4.6 Billion years of changing climate on this planet Try and get one of your neo con posters to back you up ... they will avoid you like the plague since you are making such a fool of yourself. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:49pm
One word:
Climategate So again the question needs asking, when will the greens prove that climate change actually exists. Or do the Greens expect that people are meant to accept the myth of climate change and then we are to create policies to support (?) or address the myth. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Oh_Yeah on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:52pm Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:35pm:
Anne, you really should understand the difference between climate change and man made climate change before you enter into debates like these lol |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:53pm The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:52pm:
I guess you need to understand the issue itself. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Greens_Win on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:56pm Is the climate the same as 4.6 billion years ago No Climate Change Proven When will neo cons admit their denial of climate change proves they are the worst financial managers. NSW Liberals will cripple our climate change adaption ... crippling our economy. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Saint Nickoff on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:58pm Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:42pm:
Shush, I heard that Bob Brown has a health issue. I think his prostate has finally given up. ::) It happens to turd burglars, pillow munchers, marmite eaters, and carpet screamers. ;) The anus is for a reason, as an outlet to get rid of waste products. Not for males to pretend to be performing sex as a recreational event, without a condom. All homosexuals should suffer AIDS. :o |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by longweekend58 on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:58pm ____ wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 1:08pm:
pity it just ISNT true. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:58pm ____ wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:56pm:
Ok as mentioned before you have a natural gift with stupidity. But ok that's not your fault. But perhaps you can explain what the greens policy is to climate that has changed for 4.6 billion years. Oh and I'm notgoing to go through and challenge where you get the 4.6 billion nor the change in climate (not proven). Just what is your policy to address this. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 8th, 2010 at 6:00pm Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:58pm:
And for Greens, the question is what is the greens policy to address natural climate change. That means it is excluding the alleged man-made climate change. SO what is the greens position? |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by longweekend58 on Dec 8th, 2010 at 6:01pm skippy. wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 1:21pm:
probably because they are way more expensive. i dont know whay that is such a hard thing for u to comprehend. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 8th, 2010 at 6:05pm longweekend58 wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 6:01pm:
It's nice to buy things with other people's money. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by gizmo_2655 on Dec 8th, 2010 at 6:14pm ____ wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:56pm:
Was the Climate different 2.6 billion years ago different to the Climate 4.6 billion years ago??? Did MAN have anything to do with the difference?? NO Man-Made Climate Change DISPROVED |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by longweekend58 on Dec 8th, 2010 at 6:20pm
Green-snot is the living proof of the stupidity of the Greens. just reading this thread and reading his utter, utter stupidity is a laugh.
He focuses on the NSW liberals for reasons that only another like-minded moron could explain. Theyve been out of office for AGES. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Greens_Win on Dec 8th, 2010 at 6:24pm gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 6:14pm:
The discussion was on climate change, not human caused climate change ... guess that is the risk when gizmo jumps in ignorant. Human deforestation proves human caused climate change. For example : Easter Island |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Greens_Win on Dec 8th, 2010 at 6:27pm longweekend58 wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 6:20pm:
And if NSW Labor was half a party, NSW Liberals would grab defeat from victory yet again. At least NSW voters have The Greens to counter the denial of climate change by NSW Liberals if Libs don't fall over before march. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 8th, 2010 at 6:32pm longweekend58 wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 6:20pm:
Yes as he has conveniently displayed, he does excel in his natural gift. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 8th, 2010 at 6:33pm gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 6:14pm:
You're not meant to use his "logic" against him. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by codswal on Dec 8th, 2010 at 6:35pm ____ wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 3:29pm:
YOU ARE WITHOUT A DOUBT THE BIGGEST WANKER ON HERE..NEVER HAS SO MUCH CRAP BEEN SAID BY SOMEONE SO LITTLE. WITHOUT PURE EVIDENCE OR BACK BONE TO BACK HIS STATEMENTS.. OR MORE TO THE POINT AL GORES STATEMENTS..SPINLESS WANKER THATS THE ONLY WORDS i CAN FIND FOR YOU,..PITIFUL IS ANOTHER. GOOD LUCK YOU MORONS THAT FOLLOW THIS TWIT. why bother arguing with a woodenheadedtwat.blurrrk |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 8th, 2010 at 6:35pm longweekend58 wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:58pm:
LOL Yes green energy, that has to be the ultimate joke. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 8th, 2010 at 6:37pm codswal wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 6:35pm:
Well said codswal. Yes, no matter how many times he has been asked to prove climate change he still cannot. codswal wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 6:35pm:
LOL |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Greens_Win on Dec 8th, 2010 at 6:38pm Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 6:32pm:
I just noticed this in rules Forum Rules Personal criticism Do not post personal criticism of other members. Do not respond to personal criticism of yourself or other members. This is the biggest problem on OzPolitic. Too many members are easily baited into off-topic personal exchanges. If you participate in any kind of flame war you will be suspended, regardless of who started it or who you think ‘deserved it’. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Greens_Win on Dec 8th, 2010 at 6:39pm codswal wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 6:35pm:
Forum Rules Personal criticism Do not post personal criticism of other members. Do not respond to personal criticism of yourself or other members. This is the biggest problem on OzPolitic. Too many members are easily baited into off-topic personal exchanges. If you participate in any kind of flame war you will be suspended, regardless of who started it or who you think ‘deserved it’. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 8th, 2010 at 6:39pm ____ wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 6:38pm:
I hope you read those rules and abide by them. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by mantra on Dec 8th, 2010 at 6:47pm ____ wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 6:39pm:
Greens - keep a copy of the abuse as it spurts out - save the posts up for a short while together with the links and send a PM to the mods. All the right whingers complain to the mods - the rest of us should as well. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 8th, 2010 at 6:48pm
All the lefties complain so the lefties logic is that the righties do as well.
|
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by mantra on Dec 8th, 2010 at 6:50pm Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 6:39pm:
Practise what you preach and stop being so disruptive. You're not here to offer a genuine opinion - you're here just to stir up trouble. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by codswal on Dec 8th, 2010 at 6:52pm
The discussion was on climate change, not human caused climate change ... guess that is the risk when gizmo jumps in ignorant.
Human deforestation proves human caused climate change. For example : Easter Island Back to top ------------------- wonder what the explanation is for the disappearance of the Ancient Egyptains???even the Aztecs.as climate change has been going on for 4.6 billion years.. now all of a sudden man has made the tides rise to scary proportions all in the space of less than 50 years...of so called deforestation... forest thats have been replaced for years...admittedly a lot has been done that was harmful to the planet.. but for gods sake someone, we have turned the corner on that.... yes there are people out there killing endangered species. AND YES THERE ARE COMPAINIES OUT THERE NOT ALWAYS DOING THE RIGHT THING ooops sorry...but the world is doing something about it.. we are saving the animals.. we are stopping the logging.. and making national parks..we are even stopping the fishing. if we stop anymore we may as well call a halt to the human species... stop this bloody minded ignorant PANIC. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by codswal on Dec 8th, 2010 at 6:55pm ____ wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 6:39pm:
---- take a leaf out of your own twaddle... I dont suggest you take your medicine do I....and that insinuates I am a drug addict.. so get your act together before you point that nasty little finger..you baited me.twit. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by codswal on Dec 8th, 2010 at 6:58pm
I will leave you all to the "he said she said boards"... what a boring mindless conversation.
|
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 8th, 2010 at 6:58pm mantra wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 6:50pm:
And yet you do a far better example of that. You like to point the finger at others to take the attention off yourself. And you should take a leaf out of my book so then you'd be able to offer contributions to the thread topics. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 8th, 2010 at 6:59pm codswal wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 6:58pm:
How's your day been codswal? I mean apart from the childish comments & flames being directed |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by mantra on Dec 8th, 2010 at 7:14pm Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 6:59pm:
You are the one doing this. I thought you were going to stay out of the Politics forum. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 8th, 2010 at 7:15pm Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 6:59pm:
|
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by gizmo_2655 on Dec 8th, 2010 at 11:32pm ____ wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 6:24pm:
Oh so you mean Natural (Real) Climate Change....which we cannot aaffect one way or the other???? Ok thanks for clarifying.... So in reference to the thread title........exactly what action should the Liberal Party take on Natural Climate Change???? |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by gizmo_2655 on Dec 8th, 2010 at 11:46pm
So, Greens, what you are NOW saying is that the climate always changes naturally (just like the sceptics have been saying all along), and will continue to do so, no matter what we do, or do not do.??
So therefore the whole panic about Co2 levels is aimed at changing society and civilization to bring it in line with your ideals, and Co2 levels fluctuate due to natural systems in the climate and NOT as a result of human actions, because human actions cannot affect Climate Change, which is Natural??? Ok, thanks for clearing that up.... |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Greens_Win on Dec 9th, 2010 at 5:33am
I guess if push came to shove, natural and human climate change can not be differentiated since humans are a natural part of the system.
Yet that would take a certain amount of ignorance. Easter Island is a perfect microcosm : it was able to support a human population Humans took it for granted, and started to deforest the Island. When all the trees were chopped down, the human population crashed due to starvation. Now the macrocosm : Deforestation is changing weather patterns and climate across the planet. Deforestation is only one part of the human effect on climate, yet the easiest to prove. Time to shift on this debate Neo Con Liberals. Time to formulate policies of human caused climate change adaptation. Ask your small l Liberals for advice, they are awake to the threat of human caused climate change. Or learn from the political party who have been correct on environment all along ~ The Greens. Then it could be possible for Liberals and Greens to work together ... even in some sort of alliance in government if the opportunity presented itself in NSW after March. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 9th, 2010 at 6:34am gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 11:46pm:
LOL brilliantly put gizmo |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 9th, 2010 at 6:35am gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 11:32pm:
Or what are the Greens policies on natural climate change LOL |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by skippy. on Dec 9th, 2010 at 7:39am
Hey mellie, you said you were staying out of the politics threads, that means your sox like Missy and the other one as well you know.
|
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by chicken_lipsforme on Dec 9th, 2010 at 11:59am ____ wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:56pm:
Outstanding, so we have survived through 4.6 million years of climate change. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 9th, 2010 at 12:04pm
The greens are very much blinded by intelligence, so much so that anyone only has to mention the words global warming or climate change and the Greenies will automatically protest against it -regardless!
|
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Andrei.Hicks on Dec 9th, 2010 at 12:13pm chicken_lipsforme wrote on Dec 9th, 2010 at 11:59am:
Yep - did you know Mars' temperature has continued to climb over the last 40 years by the same relative temperature as Earth? Now could it be the sun that both planets orbit? Or has human factory emissions on Earth changed Mars' temperature too. If so, we've managed some feat. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 9th, 2010 at 12:16pm Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 9th, 2010 at 12:13pm:
That maybe man-made climate change then, or perhaps a greens supporter can help clarify this. I guess it could be natural climate change. So again we must implement policies to counter natural climate change - to save Mars, and the Martians. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Greens_Win on Dec 9th, 2010 at 12:18pm Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 9th, 2010 at 12:13pm:
A. Have humans been around for 4.6 Billion Years? B. Got any data about Mar's temps Andrei. I reckon you are pulling everyone's leg with that comment. C. And if Mar's temp has climbed like earths ... this disproves all the bull the denialists have said about the planet cooling in the last few years. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 9th, 2010 at 12:20pm ____ wrote on Dec 9th, 2010 at 12:18pm:
Of course an environmentalist denies it. They know so much don't they. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Andrei.Hicks on Dec 9th, 2010 at 12:22pm
CLIMATE change sceptics have seized on news that Mars is heating up to back their claim that humans are not causing Earthly global warming.
The research comes from US planetary scientists, who suggest the Red Planet warmed by about 0.65C from the 1970s to the 1990s, similar to Earth's 0.6C average temperature rise during the 20th Century. "It could be coincidental or it might be the needle in the haystack," said climatologist William Kininmonth, former head of the National Climate Centre in Melbourne. "It's an interesting observation, as it's the same time period as Earth's temperature has been warming." Mr Kininmonth said the research, published in the journal Nature, showed there was enough natural climate variability to account for global warming on Earth. Not so, claimed Neville Nicholls, a climate scientist at Monash University in Melbourne. Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar. End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar. "The paper is interesting but it hasn't got anything to do with the question of human impact on global warming on Earth," Dr Nicholls said. "It's not an excuse to argue that humans are not causing global warming on Earth." The research was done by a team led by Lori Fenton of the NASA Ames Research Centre at Moffett Field, California. They used a computer model based on those devised to study global warming on Earth, adding Martian features such as a cold, airless surface and a shifting south polar ice cap while subtracting Earth's oceans and atmosphere. Dr Fenton's group found that annual variation in the solar radiation reflected from the surface of Mars - its "albedo" - contributed to the warming by causing more blowing dust. Over the past 30 years the dust swept clean large swaths of the planet's surface, reducing reflected radiation. The result was a "positive feedback loop" between dust, wind, albedo and temperature. "It's a nice piece of work," said UNSW climate scientist Andy Pitman. "But there are no implications for Earth." Professor Pitman was lead author of the climate modelling section of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report released in February. Professor Pitman disputed Associate Professor Franks' claim that changes in Earth's albedo had a bigger influence on climate than greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. "Albedo is included in climate models," Professor Pitman said. "It can have a local effect but cannot explain the observed warming record." The Australian http://www.perthnow.com.au/mars-warming-like-earth/story-e6frg4nl-1111113290972 |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by gizmo_2655 on Dec 9th, 2010 at 12:22pm Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 9th, 2010 at 12:16pm:
Wouldn't Mars be suffering from Martian-made climate change then??? |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 9th, 2010 at 12:24pm ____ wrote on Dec 9th, 2010 at 12:18pm:
____ wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 5:56pm:
Wonder if the environmentalists can support the comment that the climate wasn't the same as 4.6 billion years ago. Do you think that the scientific records may have been archived? |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Greens_Win on Dec 9th, 2010 at 12:25pm Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 9th, 2010 at 12:22pm:
Yes and in the last 3 years ? There is a reason why the denialist dumped this line a couple of years ago ... keep on digging |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 9th, 2010 at 12:26pm gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 9th, 2010 at 12:22pm:
Yes I guess they would be. Those little green men (and women) suffering from green climate change. Hey maybe Earth is also suffering from the greens as well. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 9th, 2010 at 12:28pm
Do the Green supporters or even environmentalists really know what the issue is?
|
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Andrei.Hicks on Dec 9th, 2010 at 12:29pm ____ wrote on Dec 9th, 2010 at 12:25pm:
Ohhh, ok. So now we're looking at 3 year periods of temperature change are we? On planets billions of years old, we are starting to look at 3 year graphs. What about by month? Or shall we start to measure over weekends too? |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by gizmo_2655 on Dec 9th, 2010 at 12:33pm ____ wrote on Dec 9th, 2010 at 12:25pm:
You can keep struggling with this line of argument greens, but it's not going to work.... Earth's temp increased (in a century) by a little less than Mars' temp increased in 20 years.....There are NO known industries on Mars, so action other than 'natural' cannot be the cause of the Mars increase. And since the Earth has warmed slower than Mars then human action cannot be blamed for the temperature increases on Earth.... Climate Change/Global Warming is a perfectly natural phenomenon and nothing we do can accelerate it or deccelerate it.... |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 9th, 2010 at 12:34pm
And not referring to Copenhagen when the Climategate was highlighted exposingthe scam from the scientists that the greens rely heavily upon.
No, not referring to that at all. Rather the Cancun Convention highlights just how (un) intelligent the environmentalists are and how they are so willing to protest without giving a second thought to what the issue is actually about. This is funny http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hzLs60ZaNW4 As is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzZ_Zcp4PwY |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 9th, 2010 at 12:35pm
Cancun COP16 attendees fall for the old “dihydrogen monoxide” petition as well as signing up to cripple the U.S. Economy
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/08/cop16-attendees-fall-for-the-old-dihydrogen-monoxide-petition-as-well-as-signing-up-to-cripple-the-u-s-economy/#more-29077 If only the environmentalists had a thought process beforehand. Would that be asking too much? |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Greens_Win on Dec 9th, 2010 at 12:38pm Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 9th, 2010 at 12:29pm:
Keep on digging since some planets have not followed earth's warming trend ... especially in the last three years. Don't tell me you didn't know this since denials dumped the solar angle like hotcakes a couple of years ago. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Greens_Win on Dec 9th, 2010 at 12:41pm gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 9th, 2010 at 12:33pm:
Since Mars rotation isn't the same as Earths, then can we expect exact temp increases across all planets? I just like you guys to dig your hole a little deeper before we put you out of your misery. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Andrei.Hicks on Dec 9th, 2010 at 12:41pm ____ wrote on Dec 9th, 2010 at 12:38pm:
But given that other planets ALSO HAVE warmed up as a direct result of solar activity. Mars being the most like-for-like planet in the solar system by the way to Earth. Neptune, Triton also warmed up. Pluto has warmed up despite travelling AWAY from the Sun. So if these have through natural phenomenon, who are you to decide Earth's is not natural? |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by gizmo_2655 on Dec 9th, 2010 at 12:45pm ____ wrote on Dec 9th, 2010 at 12:41pm:
And since there is no GHG or Co2 producing industries on Mars, if Earth's climate is being affected by man's actions, then Mars shouldn't have warmed at all......According the the environmentalist manifesto.. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by skippy. on Dec 9th, 2010 at 12:46pm Quote:
It amazes me just how stupid people are that think all the pollution of the industrial age and particularly the last 60 years could not affect the environment. At least they're a minority. :o |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by gizmo_2655 on Dec 9th, 2010 at 12:47pm skippy. wrote on Dec 9th, 2010 at 12:46pm:
The 'environment' or the climate??? And NO they're NOT the same thing... |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by sprintcyclist on Dec 9th, 2010 at 12:48pm they'ld sing any petition. just give them free flights, accommodation and food at exotic locations. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by skippy. on Dec 9th, 2010 at 1:01pm gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 9th, 2010 at 12:47pm:
The climate affects the environment, do you understand that? Is climate the same as weather? Its not a trick question, lots on here think it is, I just need to know if I'm wasting my time on your capacity to understand. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Andrei.Hicks on Dec 9th, 2010 at 1:04pm
You fail to understand that Australia can do precisely bugger all about affecting the climate.
All a carbon tax does is make people pay more money for their electricity. Some of you clowns really are total idiots on this and show no compassion to struggling families who would pay through the nose for your idiotic pipe dreams. I refuse to pay a single cent until I see China and India's emissions declining. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by skippy. on Dec 9th, 2010 at 1:23pm Quote:
Well you wont, you claim you don't live here, talk about challenged. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Imperium on Dec 9th, 2010 at 1:26pm
He lives in the U.S skip, or alleges to. The U.S is a major emitter; far more so than India, especially on a per-capita basis. They can definitely make a difference. So.. would you pay a cent to reduce U.S emissions, Andrei?
|
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by gizmo_2655 on Dec 9th, 2010 at 1:28pm skippy. wrote on Dec 9th, 2010 at 1:01pm:
Yes I do know that, but the environment doesn't 'control' climate.....but Climate controls environment.. Weather is part of climate (and is affected BY climate), like the radio is a 'part' of a car... |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Imperium on Dec 9th, 2010 at 1:31pm
I think the members here get mixed up with the lies about themselves sometimes.
|
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Andrei.Hicks on Dec 9th, 2010 at 1:39pm JC Denton wrote on Dec 9th, 2010 at 1:26pm:
Until I see Indian and Chinese emissions reduce, I do not see why the rest of us should. In the USA we enjoy a more competitively priced energy source. I pay 79c per litre for petrol for example whereas others on here would pay what? $1.35 per litre or something? |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Prevailing on Dec 9th, 2010 at 2:03pm
Surely people can see that the solution to climate change is less Government, less bureaucracy, less corporatism and less taxation - not more. If we are going to get serious on climate then lets pull out of the UN, lets run international relations through embassies, lets abolish recycled Soviet economic growth models and get back to sane stable Government and society. Remember, a small sleeping Government that is responsible, non reformist and minds its own business is a good Government. :)
|
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by gizmo_2655 on Dec 9th, 2010 at 2:10pm Prevailing wrote on Dec 9th, 2010 at 2:03pm:
Oh absolutely...Climate change will end, when we give up cities, electricity, medicine, running water, all technology and start living in communes again, wearing homespun hemp clothing, growing lentils and hemp plants and go back to the 'good old days' when we died at age 40 (if we survived all the childhood illnesses) and never ever travelled more than 20 kms from our village..... Ahhh yes, 600BC , when humans lived in 'Utopia'.. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Prevailing on Dec 9th, 2010 at 2:29pm
I have always been one to embrace reality rather than Communist ideology and propaganda, big reformist Government is the antithesis of social and human proress and prosperity.
But sure by all means lets take a look at your Government directed Utopias - - the soviet union, the PRC, the third reich, Cambodia, the examples are endless and the outcomes are predictive. Only smaller non reformist non growth in Governments and bureaucracy will save us...and a Government that can admit its failings and meet its obligations to its citizens... |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Soren on Dec 9th, 2010 at 2:31pm skippy. wrote on Dec 9th, 2010 at 1:01pm:
Climate is weather statistics. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by skippy. on Dec 9th, 2010 at 2:50pm Soren wrote on Dec 9th, 2010 at 2:31pm:
Climate is the average weather pattern in a place over many years. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by skippy. on Dec 9th, 2010 at 2:58pm
Climates changes if the factors that influence them fluctuate. To change climate on a global scale, either the amount of heat that is let into the system changes, or the amount of heat that is let out of the system changes.
do you understand this Gizmo? |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by sprintcyclist on Dec 9th, 2010 at 3:10pm you are off topic do you understand this skippy ? Aussie releases about 2% of the worlds (supposed) pollution. do you understand this skippy ? even if we completley stopped our pollution, it'ld make no difference do you understand this skippy ? copenhagan caused more pollution that it saved, but the leftards are at it again. do you understand this skippy ? |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by skippy. on Dec 9th, 2010 at 3:19pm Quote:
LOL, you are off topic, But I know you are too stupid to understand this ,sprunt. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 9th, 2010 at 4:35pm gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 9th, 2010 at 12:47pm:
That's right, but we have to take it easy against the greenies. They all suffering jet lag from their flight back from Cancun! |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 9th, 2010 at 4:41pm Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 9th, 2010 at 3:10pm:
Sprint, some people do need to be spoonfed. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Prevailing on Dec 9th, 2010 at 4:48pm
I still haven't heard a good argument from the Government as to why I should support a carbon tax or help fund the Chicago climate bureaucratic gravy train... ;D
|
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Saint Nickoff on Dec 9th, 2010 at 4:54pm
Skippy outed himself here a long time ago.http://www.polanimal.com/polanimal/index.php?sid=d0bf6a3f6b53447acc48cbdda31ff1d4
|
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 9th, 2010 at 4:56pm
The link failed
|
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 9th, 2010 at 4:57pm Prevailing wrote on Dec 9th, 2010 at 4:48pm:
Are you suggesting that there is a good argument for a carbon tax? Much like the greenies claiming that climate change exists, even though they can't prove it even exists. Guess Cancun is a lovely place. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Saint Nickoff on Dec 9th, 2010 at 5:08pm Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 9th, 2010 at 4:56pm:
::) http://www.polanimal.com/polanimal/index.php?sid=d0bf6a3f6b53447acc48cbdda31ff1d4 |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 9th, 2010 at 5:10pm
Five words that all greenies don't want to be bandied around when discussing global warming/climate change:
1) Copenhagen 2) Climategate 3) Cancun 4&5) dihydrogen monoxide |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Saint Nickoff on Dec 9th, 2010 at 5:17pm Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 9th, 2010 at 4:56pm:
:D Try it now. :P |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by skippy. on Dec 9th, 2010 at 5:19pm Saint Nickoff wrote on Dec 9th, 2010 at 5:08pm:
Yet another troll too scared to post under their usual nick. BTW, that link only went to the home page. I've just looked at your posts, either IQ or nef, she likes to imitate those she admires. Besides her and Iq are the only people still posting on the ghost ship deepthought. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by skippy. on Dec 9th, 2010 at 5:25pm
If its you nef. why did you punt the peter pan nick? it suited you sweetie.
|
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by skippy. on Dec 9th, 2010 at 5:38pm
Wow, this forum has more socks nowadays than a millipede has legs.
There must be a lot of banned members still trying to post here, or a lot of people trying to manipulate the threads, my guess is the second option. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by longweekend58 on Dec 9th, 2010 at 6:07pm skippy. wrote on Dec 9th, 2010 at 12:46pm:
and amazing how few environmentalists understand the concept of PROOF. given that the earth is a SELF-REPAIRING BIOSPHERE you need to actually PROVE the case that mankinds effects on the environment exceed earths ability to repair it. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Saint Nickoff on Dec 9th, 2010 at 6:09pm
:o
|
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 9th, 2010 at 6:17pm longweekend58 wrote on Dec 9th, 2010 at 6:07pm:
If the greens could actually prove that climate change exists then they may get some credibility. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by longweekend58 on Dec 9th, 2010 at 6:19pm Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 9th, 2010 at 6:17pm:
They dont chase credibility. they chase protest. Protest voters dont look for credibility which is handy since most Greens policies are anything BUT credibile |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 9th, 2010 at 6:29pm longweekend58 wrote on Dec 9th, 2010 at 6:19pm:
SO true there longy. Did you view the Cancun videos, showing how gullible the environmentalists/greens really are. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Equitist on Dec 9th, 2010 at 8:13pm Humanity has had devastating impacts across the globe - especially over the last couple of hundred years of rapid industrialisation, mass urbanisation and wanton over-consumption... For instance, check this local map out: - |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Equitist on Dec 9th, 2010 at 8:38pm Now check out the chequered massacred landscape a little further north of Tamworth and Gunnedah... |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Verge on Dec 9th, 2010 at 8:41pm
So what has the cost of the Labor Party inaction on climate change?
|
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Equitist on Dec 9th, 2010 at 8:45pm Now let's check out the scars on the landscape around Narrabri and Wee Waa... |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Equitist on Dec 9th, 2010 at 8:50pm Now a little further north - to Moree... |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 9th, 2010 at 8:52pm Verge wrote on Dec 9th, 2010 at 8:41pm:
And what was the cost of the greens inaction on climate change? |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Imperium on Dec 9th, 2010 at 8:54pm
How about this one, a person who is contributing to our net carbon emissions by spending their time performing the superfluous human activity of posting on an internet message board
:P |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by gizmo_2655 on Dec 9th, 2010 at 9:15pm skippy. wrote on Dec 9th, 2010 at 2:58pm:
Yes, and changes to climate affect the environment.....fairly simple.. Now tell me how changes to the environment change the amount of heat in or out of the system..... Without resorting to any reference to man-made Co2 or Green House Gases.... |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Equitist on Dec 9th, 2010 at 9:22pm JC Denton wrote on Dec 9th, 2010 at 8:54pm:
LOL...I've been absent for days and this is the kind of 'welcome back' that I get!? Anyways...people were asking for "proof" of the impacts of humankind on the environment - what more can I do, othern than provide aerial views of the stark geometric man-made scars on the Australian landscape!? How's about we play spot the stand of native Australian bush amongst the man-made scars in your own region!? |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Equitist on Dec 9th, 2010 at 9:25pm Now, let us look at the stark evidence of the environmental mess that humans have made in SA and Vic... |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 9th, 2010 at 9:26pm gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 9th, 2010 at 9:15pm:
Good luck with getting any response, much less chance to of getting anything that's sane. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Equitist on Dec 9th, 2010 at 9:32pm gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 9th, 2010 at 9:15pm:
Perhaps, Gizmo et al, you could try to explain how you think that the scars on the landscapes in the regions pictured herein could not impact significantly upon the temperature of the soil, water and air... |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Oh_Yeah on Dec 9th, 2010 at 9:57pm gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 9th, 2010 at 9:15pm:
The major one would be the "heat island" effect around cities. The concrete and asphalt of cities retains the heat making them hotter than the surrounding countryside. Another one would be deforestation which causes lower humidity, less cloud cover and as a result higher temperatures. An increase in snow cover reflects more heat and causes even greater snow cover. Some of our ice ages have started this way. So there are 3 examples off the top of my head and I haven't even mentioned greenhouse gasses |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 9th, 2010 at 10:04pm
And all with no proof.
|
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Equitist on Dec 9th, 2010 at 10:08pm The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 9th, 2010 at 9:57pm:
I would add that the hardstand roof, paving and road surfaces also contribute to devastating temperature rises in watercourses due to heated stormwater run-off - because most native aquatic fauna cannot tolerate a daily variation in temperature of more than 2oC... |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Imperium on Dec 9th, 2010 at 10:17pm Quote:
:( I'm sorry. Here. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by gizmo_2655 on Dec 9th, 2010 at 10:27pm Equitist wrote on Dec 9th, 2010 at 10:08pm:
Those are all good points..Although the 'heat island' effect would hardly be large enough to increase temperatures on a 'planetary' scale.. And due to the physics of cooling, the stormwater run off wouldn't even come close to increasing the temperatures of watercourses by any decent percentage of A degree, let alone by 2 degrees on a daily basis.. And again, deforestation would only have a local effect....still not enough to influence WORLD temperatures by any perceptable amount... If you remove ALL forest from the planet, then maybe you'd get a noticeable increase in world temp.. So again, none of those would have a large enough influence (even combined) to be responsible for the current natural climate variation, or to even affect it to point where the 'checks and balances' of the Earth couldn't cope .. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Greens_Win on Dec 10th, 2010 at 4:21am gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 9th, 2010 at 10:27pm:
Do you have any science to back up your opinion? |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Greens_Win on Dec 10th, 2010 at 4:33am
http://rainforests.mongabay.com/0907.htm
ATMOSPHERIC ROLE OF FORESTS Global Carbon Emissions Breakdown Gigatons Global Emissions: 8.7-9.1 Fossil fuels: 6.9-7.0 Land-use change (deforestation): 1.8-2.0 Other: 0.1 Global Absorption: 8.7-9.1 Remains in atmosphere: 4.5 Absorbed by oceans: 2.3 Absorbed by vegetation: 1.9-2.3 Global Carbon Reservoirs Carbon Reservoir Size (Gigatons) Atmosphere 750 Forests 610 Surface oceans 1,580 Deep ocean 38,100 Fossil fuels 5,000 Coal 4000 Oil 500 Natural gas 500 Natural gas 500 Source: Kasting 1998 Rainforests play the important role of locking up atmospheric carbon in their vegetation via photosynthesis. The vegetation and soils of the world's forests contain about 125 percent of the carbon found in the atmosphere. When forests are burned, degraded, or cleared, the opposite effect occurs: large amounts of carbon are released into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide along with other greenhouse gases (nitrous oxide, methane, and other nitrogen oxides). The burning of forests releases about two billion metric tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere each year, or about 22 percent of anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide. The buildup of carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere is known as the "greenhouse effect." The accumulation of these gases is believed to have altered the earth's radiative balance, meaning more of the sun's heat is absorbed and trapped inside the earth's atmosphere, producing global warming. Greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide are transparent to incoming shortwave solar radiation. This radiation reaches the earth's surface, heats it, and re-radiates it as long-wave radiation. Greenhouse gases are opaque to long-wave radiation and therefore, heat is trapped in the atmosphere. As greenhouse gases build up, this opacity is increased and more heat is trapped in the atmosphere. The largest anthropogenic contributor to the greenhouse effect is carbon dioxide gas emissions, about 77 percent of which comes from the combustion of fossil fuels and 22 percent of which is attributed to deforestation. The final 1 percent comes primarily from energy-costly production activities like the manufacture of concrete, steel, and aluminum. The preindustrial atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide was 280 ppm, though today levels have risen to 375 ppm, a 30 percent increase. Climatologists estimate that a level pf 450 ppm—as projected for 2050—may result in an eventual 1.8-3 degrees Celsius (3.2-5.4 degrees Fahrenheit) increase in temperature. Some scientists predict that global warming will produce a sharp upswing in global temperatures followed by a deep plunge into a glacial period several thousands years from now. However, there are still a lot of unknowns about the impact of climate change. The extent and effect of global warming has been long debated by scientists, industries, and politicians. In 1995 leading scientists and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that global warming had been detected and that "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate." Their evidence included a 0.5-1F (0.3 to 0.6C) increase in average global temperature since 1960, a 4.5F (2.5C) degree increase at the Earth's poles, the breaking up of the Antarctic ice sheets, the receding of glaciers worldwide, the longest El Niño ever recorded, a record number of hurricanes in 1995, a record number of heat waves, and an increase of epidemics attributed to global climate change, including dengue fever, malaria, hanta virus, and the plague. According to scientists at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 1998 was the warmest year on record, although 2005 was a close second. A British study at the University of East Anglia suggested that 1998 may be the warmest year in over 800 years. The 1990s have been the warmest decade of the millennium and the past decade has witnessed nine of the eleven hottest years this century. In the 900 years before the twentieth century, temperatures dropped an average of 0.02 degrees C (0.04 degrees F) per century. Since 1960 atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels have increased from 313 ppm to 375 ppm (20 percent increase), according to measurements from Mauna Loa observatory, and carbon-dioxide levels are now 27 percent higher than at any point in the last 650,000 years. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projects that atmospheric carbon-dioxide levels could reach 450-550 ppm by 2050, possibly resulting in higher temperatures and rising sea levels, along with a myriad of potential impacts ranging from increased storm and hurricane intensity; melting of polar ice, Arctic permafrost, and glaciers; changes in ocean currents including the Gulf Stream; a rise in global sea levels which could inundate low-elevation cities like Cairo, Venice, Lagos, New Orleans, and Amsterdam and cause problems for low-lying nations; increased coral bleaching and mortality of reef ecosystems; changes in ecosystems; species migration and mass extinction, especially among cold climate species; heightened danger from human pollutants like ozone; health impacts including the spread of tropical disease into cooler climates and range expansion of other pathogens; and water shortages. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 10th, 2010 at 4:35am
And what story are you going to tell us this all means?
|
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Greens_Win on Dec 10th, 2010 at 4:48am
Israeli forest fire sign of climate change: study
Israel's worst-ever forest fire earlier this month confirms predictions on the impact of global warming in the Mediterranean basin, according to one of Israel's leading climate experts. "The fire disaster in the Carmel Mountains near Haifa is a taste of the future," Guy Pe'er, co-author of Israel's National Report on Climate Change, said on Wednesday. Nearly a decade ago, Pe'er and other scientists warned that warming would create conditions such as heat waves, decreased and delayed rainfall, leading to a higher risk of intense forest fires. Advertisement: Story continues below The recent four-day blaze, which destroyed some five million trees across 12,000 acres (4,800 hectares), arose from these very conditions, he said. The national report predicted that a temperature increase of only 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) compared to pre-industrial times would cause the region's desert to expand northward some 300-500 kilometers (200-30 miles). Without deep cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions, the temperature increase by century's end will be closer to 3.0 C (5.4 F), scientists say. In either scenario, such a change would spell the end of Mediterranean-type ecosystems in Israel, Pe'er said. The fire that raged in the Carmel mountain range, which rises more than 500 metres (1,500 feet) above sea level, was preceded by eight months of drought and occurred during a heat wave with temperatures around 30 C. Normally, first rainfall should have come in September or October, and the maximal daily temperature at this time of year should be around 15-20 C. Pe'er, currently a fellow at the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research, Leipzig, said it would be decades before the region began to recover. More than 40 people were killed in the fire. http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/israeli-forest-fire-sign-of-climate-change-study-20101210-18rmn.html Another 40 deaths the Liberal Party is partially to blame for? |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 10th, 2010 at 4:49am
Are these your stories from Cancun?
|
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by codswal on Dec 10th, 2010 at 5:17am Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 10th, 2010 at 4:49am:
I could be wrong but didnt they arrest two boys for starting the Israel fires???which then got out of control probably because of no burn back orders.. missy you are better at this than me.. but what about forest fires dont they destroy" trees "in particular?????.. California comes to mind. also mud slides.. avalanches. floods.. all destroy forests..and have been doing so for millions of years.. infact I believe I read somewhere where thats where our fossil fuel all began.with a tree falling down. that could be myth of course!!!!!! lol it amuses me to see our environmentalists all flying to an airconditioned Cancun and home again.having been feted with the best of everything. whilst producing bacically nothing, that couldnt have been achieved via Skype... skeptic dead right I am.. I also find it even more amusing that.. the FIFA.. has chosen Qatar as a destination for the World Cup where every stadium will be airconditioned.and all people of any note will be flying back and forth probably in private jets.. all this 10 years from now.... if we live long enough to witness it, that is!.. Bondi will be lost to the ocean because of those damn Libs by then, and thats just for starters. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 10th, 2010 at 6:30am codswal wrote on Dec 10th, 2010 at 5:17am:
Well the greens would claim that arson is man made climate change. As would be back burning - man made climate change. And forset clearing - man made climate change. Any forest fire the greens claim is man-made climate change. Well that maybe because the greens consider that man "invented" fire! The greens neglect the forest cultivation and restoration. The Greens claim everything that erodes the environment as man made climate change, even natural erosion. Oprah went to see the 12 apostles and London Bridge yesterday, there's only about 3 maybe 4 apostles left and the bridge collapsed some time ago. Even though the erosion was caused by the tides, the greens classify that as being from man-made climate change. Well that maybe because the Greens consider that man "invented" water. The greens are quite concerned about man made "water" especially dihydrogen monoxide. The greens want to ban dihydrogen monoxide. The Cancun videos sum up how foolish and ignorant the greens really are. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by aussiefree2ride on Dec 10th, 2010 at 6:33am Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 10th, 2010 at 6:30am:
Greenies have always been liars. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by chicken_lipsforme on Dec 10th, 2010 at 7:19am ____ wrote on Dec 10th, 2010 at 4:48am:
You missed a bit on your chin there Green. Your dribbling again. Those fires in Israel were deliberately lit, and have absolutely nothing to do with 'climate change' or any Liberal party. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by skippy. on Dec 10th, 2010 at 7:28am Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 9th, 2010 at 6:17pm:
You still here mellie, so you lied when you said you weren't posting here anymore. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by skippy. on Dec 10th, 2010 at 7:29am Saint Nickoff wrote on Dec 9th, 2010 at 6:09pm:
LOL thought it was you nef, you always post and then delete it. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by skippy. on Dec 10th, 2010 at 7:44am gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 9th, 2010 at 9:15pm:
So you dont really want to know, Ok, stay oblivious to the facts, I never expected you could comprehend it anyway. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by gizmo_2655 on Dec 10th, 2010 at 8:34am skippy. wrote on Dec 10th, 2010 at 7:44am:
Ahhh so atmospheric physics is ONLY about man-made actions??? I want to 'know' without the warmist rhetoric.... |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Andrei.Hicks on Dec 10th, 2010 at 8:58am skippy. wrote on Dec 10th, 2010 at 7:44am:
If it means we pay less money and have more to spend on cars and holidays etc that works for me. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by sprintcyclist on Dec 10th, 2010 at 9:42am What if we pay LOTS more taxes to the govt, cripple aussie industries, send jobs overseas for NO difference at ALL in the worlds climate ? Does that work for you ? It does for the unwashed leftards |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Andrei.Hicks on Dec 10th, 2010 at 10:00am Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 10th, 2010 at 9:42am:
Great idea. Let's sign up to that. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 10th, 2010 at 12:11pm Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 10th, 2010 at 9:42am:
The lefties are unwashed because of the 'deadly and dreaded' dihydrogen monoxide that the environmentalist want banned. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Andrei.Hicks on Dec 10th, 2010 at 12:14pm
Seriously -
Let's make people pay more in tax, do nothing to resolve the global environment, hinder Australian businesses, make everyday items more expensive.... Can we do that? Whose got the blueprint to this excellent idea? |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 10th, 2010 at 12:21pm Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 10th, 2010 at 12:14pm:
You omitted opeing every house to allow two or three families of illegal boat people to reside in. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by gizmo_2655 on Dec 10th, 2010 at 1:15pm skippy. wrote on Dec 10th, 2010 at 7:44am:
Skippy I already understand the ways the Earth heats and cools....I also understand the abolute necessity of Green House Gases in order for human life to exist..... |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by skippy. on Dec 10th, 2010 at 1:43pm gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 10th, 2010 at 1:15pm:
Exactly we do need them, so why is that you cannot understand that if too much water vapor carbon dioxide methane and nitrous oxide cannot escape earths lower atmosphere it gets trapped and creates heat and traps that heat in the earths atmosphere?. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Greens_Win on Dec 10th, 2010 at 1:48pm Sprintcyclist wrote on Dec 10th, 2010 at 9:42am:
If Lefties are unwashed ... does this mean righties are 'washed up'? |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by gizmo_2655 on Dec 10th, 2010 at 1:52pm skippy. wrote on Dec 10th, 2010 at 1:43pm:
But is the increase in water vapour and Co2 the 'cause' of warming, or the RESULT of warming???? In other words, if mankind had NEVER under gone the Industrial Revolution, how much would the temperatures have risen between 1850 and 2000??? |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by skippy. on Dec 10th, 2010 at 4:15pm gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 10th, 2010 at 1:52pm:
Well I'm not a scientist, are you? But it seems reasonable to me that what science is saying is correct, do you really think all the pollution via those gases could be good? While temperature fluctuation has always happened, why have temperatures risen much more since the industrial revolution? Think about the logic's, disregard the "greenhouse gas" word you seem to hate so much ( that's why I didn't use it, its easier to understand if you think of the actual gases)and look at it logically. If you released those gases inside a room on a continuous basis what would happen? where could they go? with all of that extra carbon dioxide methane nitrous oxide and water vapour would it get hotter? |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by gizmo_2655 on Dec 10th, 2010 at 5:28pm skippy. wrote on Dec 10th, 2010 at 4:15pm:
So you mean that IF there was NO industrial revolution, or 'man-made' Co2 production, then the temperatures would have increase by exactly the same amount?? That means that 'global warming' or 'climate change' is perfectly natural doesn't it??? What 'pollution'??? neither water vapour nor Co2 are pollutants....both are required for plant growth and 'life' generally.... " If you released those gases inside a room on a continuous basis what would happen? where could they go? with all of that extra carbon dioxide methane nitrous oxide and water vapour would it get hotter?" No, it might be come difficult to breath, if you don't include oxygen in the mix.....but other than that (providing there's a descent oxygen level), and that there is no heat source, it wouldn't make much difference... |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by skippy. on Dec 10th, 2010 at 7:57pm My first assessment of you was correct, you do not have the capacity to understand the basics no matter how easy they are broken down for you. I'm wasting my time trying to explain it to you. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by gizmo_2655 on Dec 11th, 2010 at 7:23am skippy. wrote on Dec 10th, 2010 at 7:57pm:
I'm good at understanding, you are just having trouble explaining... For example, the 'pumping gases into a room' analogy fails to work, because without an external heat source, the only thing that will cause an increase in temperature is atmospheric pressure greater than 101.325 kPa (sea level pressure) and unless the atmospheric pressure doubles from sea level in the 'room' the gases won't heat...... And, unlike a room, the Earth's atmosphere is NOT a sealed system.... |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 11th, 2010 at 7:29am gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 11th, 2010 at 7:23am:
Isn't it? Why do you say that? |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by gizmo_2655 on Dec 11th, 2010 at 7:45am Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 11th, 2010 at 7:29am:
Is there a solid 'wall' or shield around the Earth?? No, the atmosphere envelope extends and retracts due to pressure and temperature changes... |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 11th, 2010 at 7:52am gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 11th, 2010 at 7:45am:
But there's no leakage. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by gizmo_2655 on Dec 11th, 2010 at 7:58am Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 11th, 2010 at 7:52am:
But neither is there an upper limit...the atmosphere just gets thinner the further from the surface... |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 11th, 2010 at 8:04am gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 11th, 2010 at 7:58am:
So the atmosphere is like a membrane that retains. No need for a "solid" wall when a flexible one is just as effective and much more appropriate. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by gizmo_2655 on Dec 11th, 2010 at 8:07am Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 11th, 2010 at 8:04am:
Almost, there's no membrane or anything....mostly gravity keeps the atmosphere close, but there isn't any 'line' otherwise, we couldn't reach orbit or space without 'ripping it'.. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 11th, 2010 at 8:10am gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 11th, 2010 at 8:07am:
Yes the gravity and atmosphere act as that force. Wouldn't the NASA launches being doing more harm than anything to the atmosphere than any deoderants, air sprays etc, and alleged climate change? |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Oh_Yeah on Dec 11th, 2010 at 9:02am gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 10th, 2010 at 1:15pm:
That is exactly right. The gasses that make up our atmosphere absorb heat and make the Earth a comfortable temperature to live on. And if you accept that truth then you also have to accept that if you CHANGE the relative proportions of the gasses in the atmosphere (for example, increasing the proportion of one of the gasses) then that is going to change the way the atmosphere absorbs heat and it is going to change the climate. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by gizmo_2655 on Dec 11th, 2010 at 9:50am Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 11th, 2010 at 8:10am:
Why would they? There's nothing solid to damage by the launches.... |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by gizmo_2655 on Dec 11th, 2010 at 9:52am The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 11th, 2010 at 9:02am:
Providing you ignore the fact that the gases (particularly Co2, and H2o to a lesser extent) don't STAY in the atmosphere.... |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by muso on Dec 11th, 2010 at 10:04am
This thread is hilarious. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
It reminds me of something: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zrzMhU_4m-g&feature=related Which is heavier, a witch or a duck ? ;D Sorry, I don't get involved in discussions that confuse politics with science. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Oh_Yeah on Dec 11th, 2010 at 10:05am gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 11th, 2010 at 9:52am:
Clearly water vapour concentrations aren't going to change the climate. It rather easily falls out as rain. So in general water vapour in the atmosphere remains the same. CO2 levels are increasing as has been measured by instruments on Hawaii, Tasmania and other areas where pure generic air can be tested. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CO2-Mauna-Loa.png This shows that we are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere faster than it can be absorbed out of the atmosphere. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by longweekend58 on Dec 11th, 2010 at 10:16am The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 11th, 2010 at 10:05am:
A lot of presumptions. A) that CO2 concentrations actually matter B) that concentrations dont naturally vary over time |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Andrei.Hicks on Dec 11th, 2010 at 10:28am
When all is done, the simple fact of the matter is that scientists -
have absolutely no fking idea whether the emissions of humans has played any major role in changing the earth's climate. The fact that Mars' increases - which is by the same amount as Earth over the same period and is the most like-for-like planet to us - is easily written off as a natural occuring phenomenon on Mars climate. Then Pluto, which is warming up, despite moving away from the sun - is described as 'difficult to judge given the distance away'. Triton's climate is changing because 'it is believed' the changing in pull from the home planet has effected the climate pattern. Yet Earth is not natural, it's human made. I mean really, it's a load of "if's", "maybes" and "possibles" and we are supposed to force people to pay more just on a hunch? |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Oh_Yeah on Dec 11th, 2010 at 10:46am longweekend58 wrote on Dec 11th, 2010 at 10:16am:
A) CO2 concentrations definitely do matter. Ice core samples taken from Antarctica show that CO2 variations match up almost identically with temperature variations over hundreds of thousands of years. B) Of course concentrations vary naturally over time, just as the climate varies naturally over time. No one is disputing that. The dispute is over the past 150 years. We have rising temperatures (proven). Rising CO2 levels (proven). 6 Billions humans burning fossil fuels and deforesting the planet (proven). Frankly I would be astonished if our actions WEREN'T affecting the climate. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by longweekend58 on Dec 11th, 2010 at 11:30am The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 11th, 2010 at 10:46am:
Given that climate is a science so complex that particle physics looks simple by comparison, your assumptions are at best a guess and more than likely totally wrong. You might be ASTONISHED (your words) but thats possibly the worst argument IVe heard yet. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by gizmo_2655 on Dec 11th, 2010 at 11:54am The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 11th, 2010 at 10:46am:
Ok, assuming our actions are affecting the climate.......HOW much?? Can we (the people, scientists etc) be absolutely sure that temperature rises follow Co2 levels, and not the other way around??? Co2 is, after all, a plant food.....more Co2 means more plant life and lusher plant life, which in turn results in more photosynthesis and Co2 and water are converted to oxygen.... |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Andrei.Hicks on Dec 11th, 2010 at 11:56am
Show me someone who is 100% sure humans have caused the earth's climate change -
and I will show you an idiot. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Andrei.Hicks on Dec 11th, 2010 at 12:36pm
Note in Cancun near on every nation committing to cut emissions.
Who aren't? China and India. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Oh_Yeah on Dec 11th, 2010 at 12:40pm gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 11th, 2010 at 11:54am:
There has been some evidence in the past of rising temperatures preceding rising CO2 levels. This then creates a feedback mechanism where the rising CO2 causes further rises in temperature. (sort of the like the reverse of the reflective snow example I used in an earlier post). What can't be disputed is that there is a definite link between CO2 levels and temperature. Any benefit plants might receive from greater Co2 is more than countered by the rate of deforestation over the world, especially in Asia and Latin America. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by gizmo_2655 on Dec 11th, 2010 at 1:07pm The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 11th, 2010 at 12:40pm:
When the rest of the world is busily planting trees, shrubs and crops?? About the only area where deforestation is greater than replanting these days is Latin America...and even then it's only a couple of the Latin American countries that still 'fell' faster than they 'plant'... |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by gizmo_2655 on Dec 11th, 2010 at 1:12pm
Yes the planet is warming and the climate is changing..
But is that any great surprise, since a fairly major glaciation event finished just over a century ago??? The planet warms, then the planet cools, then it warms etc etc.. There's still no conclusive proof that OUR actions do (or CAN) have a significant affect on the amount or speed of that change... |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by aussiefree2ride on Dec 11th, 2010 at 1:25pm ____ wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 12:42pm:
Woody, Shouldn`t the question be, "The Cost Of Mindless Knee Jerk Reaction On CC" ? |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by gizmo_2655 on Dec 11th, 2010 at 1:34pm ____ wrote on Dec 8th, 2010 at 12:42pm:
And WHAT exactly can the Greens and Labor do to protect the beaches?? Australia produces 1.28% of the world Co2 emissions...so if we go to zero emissions tomorrow, what difference will it real make?? If the sea level is going to rise by 100 metres this century, if we go carbon neutral NOW, that means the seas will only rise 98.72 metres.. Not a great difference is it???? |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by longweekend58 on Dec 11th, 2010 at 5:03pm gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 11th, 2010 at 1:34pm:
CC is such a con and the science is rubbish. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 11th, 2010 at 5:53pm gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 11th, 2010 at 1:34pm:
Nothing gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 11th, 2010 at 1:34pm:
Nothing gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 11th, 2010 at 1:34pm:
Nope So that means the GALP are all about promoting nothing! No wonder the Greens understand their policies as they "know nothing" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6EaoPMANQM |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 11th, 2010 at 5:55pm longweekend58 wrote on Dec 11th, 2010 at 5:03pm:
Yes it is longy. Fortunately it was all exposed last year at the Copenhagen Climate Conference. Now only those who believe in the tooth fairy, Santa, and the Easter Bunny believe in climate change. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 12th, 2010 at 7:01am longweekend58 wrote on Dec 11th, 2010 at 5:03pm:
What is really ironic is that the Climate advocates have held two annual global warming conferences. 1) Copenhagen in 2009 where it was in freezing conditions, and recorded the coldest weather for more than 40 years. 2) Cancun in 2010 a tropical resort in Mexico much akin to places in northern Qld, and has been subjected to blizzards all week and record low temperatures. Recall how the greenies tried to scare people into believing that in the future our children won't even know want snow is. Well with the Cancun blizzards I'm sure that the other conference members believed that crap. Seems much more like global cooling doesn't it, but the greenies would never understand that. And, looks like not even God himself believes the rhetorical bull that the greenies are preaching about climate change! |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by longweekend58 on Dec 12th, 2010 at 7:17am Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 12th, 2010 at 7:01am:
God has a sense of humour. Always good to see Global Warming conferences held in record cold. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 12th, 2010 at 7:31am longweekend58 wrote on Dec 12th, 2010 at 7:17am:
Next year's conference is scheduled for Durban South Africa (Nov-Dec), guess they'll be getting out their ski boots for summer! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aShUFAG_WgM |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by longweekend58 on Dec 12th, 2010 at 5:20pm Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 12th, 2010 at 7:31am:
it would be a good possibility. and wasnt cancun a success!!! :)) they agreed to have a meetin next year and that was about it. oh they did decided to set up a $100B fund to help poor countries reduce emissions but with NO PLAN to do it which of course is exactly what happened in copenhagen and will undoubtedly happen next year as well. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Greens_Win on Dec 12th, 2010 at 5:37pm longweekend58 wrote on Dec 12th, 2010 at 5:20pm:
Durban Meeting had been set prior to the Cancon Meeting this month, so wrong again longweekend. Has the Neo Con wing of the Liberal Party stated it's opinion of the Cancon outcome yet? |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 12th, 2010 at 5:41pm ____ wrote on Dec 12th, 2010 at 5:37pm:
Once again he manages to not follow the thread and instead tries to dispute facts. Is this your typical greenie? |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by gizmo_2655 on Dec 12th, 2010 at 5:47pm longweekend58 wrote on Dec 12th, 2010 at 5:20pm:
What I find most amusing about the 'plans to help poor countries' is that the only thing they really need is electricity and jobs....both of which are carbon intensive industries... So Australia, America, and the EU will 'cut carbon production' and send the tax money to 'poor' countries in Africa, so they can build coal power stations and carbon intensive manufacturing plants...which will more than replace the cuts the 'developed nations' have made in Co2 emissions... So, Australia shuts down 250 'relatively' clean coal power stations, and THEN pays 3rd world nations to build 1000 'unregulated' coal fired power stations....net result, world Co2 emissions increase by 10x over Australias current levels |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 12th, 2010 at 5:49pm gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 12th, 2010 at 5:47pm:
LOL, yes a tad hypocritical isn't it. Are greenies also champagne socialists? |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Greens_Win on Dec 12th, 2010 at 5:51pm Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 12th, 2010 at 5:41pm:
The Durban meeting was set prior to this month. |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 12th, 2010 at 5:52pm longweekend58 wrote on Dec 12th, 2010 at 7:17am:
LOL Yes, but as we all know there is no proof of global warming, oops for the pedantic ignorant fools we are referring to man-made! |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Greens_Win on Dec 12th, 2010 at 5:54pm Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 12th, 2010 at 5:49pm:
Has the Neo Con wing on the Liberal party made any announcement of their position since the Cancon meeting? |
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by longweekend58 on Dec 12th, 2010 at 7:34pm
Yes. we LAUGHED AND LAUGHED at the fools who froze their butts off while discussing (insert mocking) Global 'Warming'.
|
Title: Re: The Cost Of Liberal Party's Inaction On CC Post by Miss Anne Dryst on Dec 13th, 2010 at 5:35am longweekend58 wrote on Dec 12th, 2010 at 7:34pm:
LOL And then all they achieved was that they wanted to ban water! |
Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2! YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved. |