Thread: How Much Do You Know About Climate Change?...A Quiz.

I am a conservation biologist (my masters degree), and climate change is not as black and white as many think. I know it seems to get very heated in discussions, but separating real facts from politics is often the problem. Forest fires for example accounts for as much as half the greenhouse gasses as fossil fuels use, then there is the impact of volcanic activity. I am not saying fossil fuel use does not matter I am just pointing out the worlds problems are not all our own making, though we are not helping matters. Climate cycles, sun spots and natural events, el ninio and la ninia all contribute to global climate and much more than people think. Another thing that I find a little irritating is often singular weather events are blamed on climate change which is just total hogwash. Climate change can only be studied in minimum blocks of 10 years, really 100 year global temperature variations would be better to get a real idea what is going on. We need to look after the planet as we kind of need it in good shape to survive ourselves, and we need to reduce our impact on it as much as we can, but all changes are not man's fault. Yes I want change, but this is one topic that has got a bit like religion, you are a Heretic if you say anything is not part of the mantra. We need clean up our act, big time, but the story is far more complicated than just blaming it all on man.
Rant over
Chris

Please don't make this quiz a political discussion. I posted it just for a little amusement.

There is an open debate on climate change in Current Affairs.

The quiz wouldn't open for me for some reason. My own thoughts on it haven't changed in years though and I still think it's the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the taxpayers of the western world. Too big to stop now as probably millions of nice soft jobs with loads of jollies depend on it.
AlanH.

1 got 100%!

On my 2nd try.

Originally Posted by cafe latte

I am a conservation biologist (my masters degree), and climate change is not as black and white as many think. I know it seems to get very heated in discussions, but separating real facts from politics is often the problem. Forest fires for example accounts for as much as half the greenhouse gasses as fossil fuels use, then there is the impact of volcanic activity. I am not saying fossil fuel use does not matter I am just pointing out the worlds problems are not all our own making, though we are not helping matters. Climate cycles, sun spots and natural events, el ninio and la ninia all contribute to global climate and much more than people think. Another thing that I find a little irritating is often singular weather events are blamed on climate change which is just total hogwash. Climate change can only be studied in minimum blocks of 10 years, really 100 year global temperature variations would be better to get a real idea what is going on. We need to look after the planet as we kind of need it in good shape to survive ourselves, and we need to reduce our impact on it as much as we can, but all changes are not man's fault. Yes I want change, but this is one topic that has got a bit like religion, you are a Heretic if you say anything is not part of the mantra. We need clean up our act, big time, but the story is far more complicated than just blaming it all on man.
Rant over
Chris

Very well put sir.

I think it's counter-productive that media and political party dogma is creating ongoing senseless and self-serving argument between the uneducated easily convinced and those that think about the facts and how the agenda is played.

Those who understand the science and can think for themselves are heckled in public forums for merely discussing the bias of the argument, further avoiding the issues we can immediately focus on.

Here's hoping for intelligent discussion not to be censored by the blinkered vocal minority...yeh I know how it will go....

Originally Posted by ramblingboy42

Please don't make this quiz a political discussion. I posted it just for a little amusement.

There is an open debate on climate change in Current Affairs.

Kind of hard not to reference the individual party agenda and who yells loudest on carefully selected and partial statistics to grab the green vote.

Kind of like asking for opinions on a GST rise and not mention the Federal vs State party agendas and who benefits.

That quiz needs a factcheck! First answer isn't D, C is close, but there isn't a correct all inclusive option....There goes our education system...

China is listed in Q4 but isn't an OECD country! So you are asked which of the list but the answer the ABC uses doesn't use the list. Misleading? Yes. Why? Because even if you use Oceana as a guide (Australia+NZ+PNG+other proximal islands) this region produces 0.4% of the worlds CO2! But the ABC and others want to make us feel like a bigger producer than China or the USA...Northern America produces 4% (ten times more) China produces 6.2%.
That's a factcheck.

The 'current affairs' section is a closed group with probably 2-5 members, so not an 'open' debate.

How's this for scaremongering -

ABC says…and the World Met Office is reporting that 2015 is likely to be hotter still.

But, this synopsis from the Australian Bureau of Meteorology…

Looking ahead – how might 2015 end? These values mean that while 2015 will be warmer than average, we can be quite certain that the year will not be Australia’s warmest on record—which occurred in 2013 with a +1.2 C anomaly.

Looking at possible outcomes based on historical scenarios, the average from the reference period (1961–1990) for November to December results in an annual temperature anomaly for 2015 of +0.59 C; the eleventh-warmest year on record.

Originally Posted by ramblingboy42

Please don't make this quiz a political discussion. I posted it just for a little amusement.

There is an open debate on climate change in Current Affairs.

I am not a member of current affairs and from what I here about it I dont want to be. I was not making this political, I was pointing out that the quiz was deeply flawed. My missus was a prominent research scientist, one of the best in her field in the world (she is a lot smarter than me), but she got fed up with how things worked. The main reason she gave up is she was due to get 40 grand for developing a new drug, but the company took her idea and found a way to make it adding a new step ie do the same thing differently. Anyway that was just background, what I wanted to mention here is the problems with research is a phd student might be given a project to prove a hypothesis or make a drug for a given condition whatever, but always a very specific question. Basically the student will get funding for their phd, but they need to get results or the funding finishes and they dont get a phd. People will do a lot to make sure this does not happen. My missus has followed on other peoples work a few times for possible wonder drugs from phd students who presented amazing results and they simply didnt work in reality work as the student had fudged the results to keep their funding, sad but true. Right now there is a lot of funding to prove climate change is all caused by man, ie a lot of very specific questions funded by people who want the answers they want, if that is not what you discover funding finishes this is not how science should work, but sadly it does. I will add this goes to both sides of the climate change debate some will be doing research to prove the existence of climate change and mans input and to a much lesser extent some will be trying to prove otherwise. Neither side will except answers that dont fit.
My missus loved science and as I said was one of the very best in her field and was once described as being one of the top 5 top five young scientists in the world. She turned her back on it all because of what I have said above. She went into science to change the world only to find it was all about money and corrupt.
All this said on the topic of climate change I am sure we are making an impact, as I have said before, but we must be very careful believing everything we hear from either side. New evidence comes out and makes the news, but who funded the research (not always easy to find out as one organisation can be funded by another) is it an oil company trying to prove all is hunky dory or is it a radical green group? With this charged topic we need to be so careful as there is more Bull than there normally is in science and there is normally a LOT.
Chris

crikey guys, just have a go at it and see you how you score.......