I’ve met Ross and worked on projects with Zen [emoji6]Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscoMick
Printable View
I’ve met Ross and worked on projects with Zen [emoji6]Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscoMick
Mate I almost was ROTFL when I read your quote.
Ross Garnaut was the architect of Supermarket To Asia , and I was on one of the committees.
It went NOWHERE because the other nations would not go along , and Australia becomes less and less competitive as goods are processed.
The boat left long ago for Australia to process iron ore etc in Australia. What do you think the Chinese would be doing if we cut off supplies? They would find new suppliers.
This of course means woodchips and the greens LOVE woodchips don't they. They also LOVE plantation timber like blue gums.Quote:
Australia's exceptional endowment of forests and woodlands gives it an advantage in biological raw materials for industrial processes.
I can't be bothered with the rest of it, but really if Garnaut prescribes it, go the other way as fast as possible.
You have to give some critical thought to these types of articles and just not parrot everything you read.
Didn't you see that the above quote means woodchips for example?
Regards PhilipA
My post wasn't about woodchips or supermarkets, so you're off topic.
Garnaut has lots of good ideas. We need more visionaries.
We certainly have a competitive edge in resources and renewable energy which we could exploit to make emissions-free electricity to power our industries to manufacture here. For example, why aren't we making more batteries and metal products, rather than importing products made using our raw materials?
Of course, that assumes Australia is still habitable by the end of this century, when the average temperature could be 4-5 degrees hotter, say around 35 degrees.
This bloke says it may not be habitable.
Australians 'may become climate refugees' as global temperatures soar: US expert
Australians 'may become climate refugees' as global temperatures soar: US expert | SBS News
"ROTFL"?....I asked Wifey what that meant, & it's atually what I do too on these sorts of posts!!!....Love iit!Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilipA
Pickles.
Lets dissect that referenced news article a little shall we....Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscoMick
"As global temperatures soar, Australia could become so hot and dry that the country's residents could become climate refugees, US climatologist and geophysicist Michael Mann says" Random statement designed to become a headline, and look, it did. Realistically if global temperatures rise 5 degrees and it that makes Australia unihabitable most of the US population will become climate refugees in Canada. More fear mongering without any basis in fact.
Australia is in the midst of one of its worst fire seasons on record, with bushfires burning since September and claiming nearly 30 lives, killing more than a billion animals and razing forests and farmland the size of Bulgaria.
A statement of fact sprinkled with some more fear mongering. Yes a lot of Australia has burnt, yes there is immense destruction of wildlife as there always is. 30 lives lost is a pretty good outcome compared with some other fire events and who cares how big Bulgaria is, that is the same as superinposing the UK map on one of Victoria and saying that its a long way to Darwin. Pretty dramatic if you are English but means little to an Australian.
Some fires were so monstrous that they created their own weather pattern causing dry lightning and fire tornadoes as a three-year drought left woods tinder-dry.
Not sure why this seems to be newsworthy. Paddocks of stubble being burnt off often generate a pyrocumulis cloud. The fuel load and scale of the fires we have experienced generates bigger weather systems, such are the forces of nature.
"It is conceivable that much of Australia simply becomes too hot and dry for human habitation," Dr Mann, who is director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, told Reuters.
It is already my learned friend, there aren't many wheatfields in the Simpson Desert
Dr Mann, the author of four books including The Madhouse Effect, said Australia could still "easily achieve" the target by shifting towards renewable energy.
Possibly but would that have any effect on the dramatic events listed above? I doubt it.
Dr Mann, the recipient of last year's Tyler Prize for Environmental Achievement, is on a sabbatical in Australia where he is studying climate change.
Ahh so here is the nub of the story, a little bit of free press never hurts when you are sipping your chardonnay on the balcony of your north shore apartment and watching the income from sales of your four books mentioned in the story roll in. And what better place to have a tax deductable holiday than to go and have a sabbatical studying climate change. I think I might have a sabbatical and go to Solihull to study the reason why the Defender has succumbed to design change and offer LR some helpful suggestions on how they should resist change and resume production. Maybe I could also duck over to the continent to tut tut about how unsuitable the new one might be as well. Oh Wait I havent published any books yet, I'll get back to you [biggrin]
Regards,
Tote
Don't forget to get Ron to proof read your book.[biggrin]Quote:
Originally Posted by Tote
1/. not trying to 'sound superior'.Quote:
Originally Posted by DiscoMick
Never have, never tried, don't care for it.
My only reason for posting is for clarity of data .. separating the hype garbage from facts.
2/. what's an annual average temp? if it's x.x°C, why? with only 50 odd years of actual accurate data recording, how do they know this is "an annual temp". 'The annual temp would be for a specific period of climate.
ie. It's not a real thing!
if there is some scientific beleif that the earth has a specific annual average temp, then this is a delusional mindset to fall into.
What would be the annual average temp during an ice age?
And surely it's going to be a different value for an interglacial period(which strangely is where we find ourselves currently)?
Now the question is how much accurate data do they have from say 10K years ago?
None(obviously) ice core data doesn't allow 100 year resolution of data, whereas now they have far more resolution of data, ie. on a less than daily timescale if they need it.
What would have been the annual temp for Aus say 5-10K years ago, when there were glaciers in southern QLD, northern NSW? I'm sure it would have been similar to todays averages! [bighmmm]
(and just in case you missed it, that last comment was a double dose of sarcasm!)
But you seem dismissive of the 0.6°C increase in 40 odd years in the early part of the 20th century too.
Because you seem to think it was colder then than it is now, it's something not important to the collection of data, nor the implications of climate.
So think of it this way, there has been a 1°C(and a bit) increase since 1900(ish), close to half of this total increase was in the period from 1900-1940s(ie. 4 decades).
Average temps tracked pretty much level, with small variances for another 4 decades between 1940-1980. But pretty much level pegged for 40 years.
Then again, and on top of the first 40 years, average temps rose again for the past 4 decades.
Basically what's happening now, is a repeat of the same process that happened 120-80 years ago.
So while a future ice core data will indicate that in this one century period temps rose 1(and a bit) degrees, we know the actual reality that it didn't rise 1 degree linearly .. it rose for 40 years, remained level for 40 and then rose again for 40 years.
This reality is a far cry from their 'assumptions' that global temps rise and or fall in whatever specific ways they seem to think it does.
3/. No one is denying anything, you seem to be of this mindset that something is being denied.
Nothing is being denied(that I can make sense of).
What's being questioned, many times over again and again ... is simply the hype and the misunderstanding of facts.
Thanks for the support Philip, but not really required in a sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilipA
I'm use to it.
Have always had a hard time trying to convince hard headed folks(ie. my father) that their concerns don't constitute a reality.
But I'm fine with the notion that if people allow themselves to be hypnotised by some futile endeavour, then that's their choice to do so.
I hoped not to bring up religion as a topic, but if I can in a broad sense. People allow themselves to be drawn into such 'cults'(which they are).
They can't or won't have an opinion on it of their own making, so whatever the loudest and sternest voice has to say is what they will believe.
Irrespective of reality and the common sense of the principles they espouse ... they wont allow themselves to let the facts(in this case, data!)
FWIW: I also used to believe that climate change was a dire situation. Not so much from the 'environmentalist' point of view, but more so from the scientific aspect .. that is, the warning being foretold of cataclysm.
But the more I looked into it(post Vic fires '09) .. the more I found BS science.
Makes no sense, predictions never panned out(as they were originally foretold) .. etc. etc.
What irritates me more tho is that when this 'science community' rewrites historical data to suit their agenda.
This is when you know that ....A line from 12 Monkeys.Quote:
science isn't an exact science with these bozos
Lots of comments, but still nothing that disproves climate change.
It's interesting when people say they don't 'believe' in climate change. Climate change is not a religion so there's nothing to believe in. It's the denialists who are putting their beliefs in opposition to facts and science.
Arthur, have you noticed that one of the most prolific posters, on this thread, has yet to proffer an original opinion? To date, from this poster, all we've seen is plagiarism of other posts and hyperbole links to radical rags.Quote:
Originally Posted by AK83
Most of the people, trying to ram their sensationalist claims down others' throats, could benefit from some comprehension lessons. They consistently refer to those who don't blindly support the alarmist cause, as denialists, in a derogatory manner. I have yet to read any post denying CC. Questioning the cause and outcomes is not denial.