maybe you're right jara

but i object to everytime there is an unusual climate event people immediately point the finger and say see i told you so

but nobody said much when last summer was mild after so many experts predicted a summer from hell

nor was there much chatter when last winter was colder than many for decades

one must be wary when being selective with the evidence in front of them, eh?

True, but both sides are guilty of using unusual events in support of their argument... but none are quite as funny as the deniers (not on these forums, I might add) that point to extreme cold weather events as evidence against global warming.

Hey Daisy, I was one of the fireys at Lancefield. Been CFA for years, spoke to lots of the older guys. None of them had ever seen anything like this, so early in the year.

Global warming is real and terrifying. Don't care what the deniers say, the evidence is there in front of us. We'll all be bloody fireys before much longer.

Jara my warmest and most authentic thank you for you and Tony Abbott for fighting a real Australian problem on the front line. I hold fireys right up there with life savers.

Jara my warmest and most authentic thank you for you and Tony Abbott for fighting a real Australian problem on the front line. I hold fireys right up there with life savers.

Well, thanks Wrecker, but I must admit, I didn't actually see Tony at this one - he probably had other things on his mind.

I'm still a bit shocked by it, actually - we were in the thick of it on that first afternoon, and I'm amazed that we could have a fire like that in October. And worried about what sort of world my kids will inherit.

By the way, I'm not one of those people who jump on the Parks guys for lighting the thing - I know some of those guys, and they have an incredibly difficult job - the odd one always gets away. Good friend of mine is one of the most experienced fire managers in the state, and he's just resigned from it - too much pressure and stress - you're damned if you burn, and damned if you don't. All a sign of the (warming) times.

I fully understand that you need substance in politics - it has to be more about policy rather than rhetoric and who looks good on the TV.

Having said that - I was a huge critic of Abbott - in the main for policy but I also cringed every time he talked - the gaffs he made. I felt embarrassed that this person represented my country.

Having said all that - whatever your leanings or whose policies most represent your values I will say that even though I may not agree with many of the Libs policies I no longer feel embarrassed now that the "face" of our country is Turnbull. He is a polished performer.

More good news that the Abbott like climate, conservative troglodyte, Stephen Harper has been thrown out of office in Canada. His replacement Trudeau may be a good leader, or he may not be but at least he recognises the importance of negotiating for positive climate change policies and action at the next meeting in Paris. Not sure about Turnbull and what he will feel safe doing but I am sure Australia won't now be a spoiler at the Paris Confetence and Canada won't be either. And if Trump wins he won't be in office before next year, so maybe we will get some consensus and commitment from all the major players to act.

More good news that the Abbott like climate, conservative troglodyte, Stephen Harper has been thrown out of office in Canada. His replacement Trudeau may be a good leader, or he may not be but at least he recognises the importance of negotiating for positive climate change policies and action at the next meeting in Paris. Not sure about Turnbull and what he will feel safe doing but I am sure Australia won't now be a spoiler at the Paris Confetence and Canada won't be either. And if Trump wins he won't be in office before next year, so maybe we will get some consensus and commitment from all the major players to act.

I hope the other countries act on superstition too. It will give us a competitive advantage over them and after the post Costello years we need every advantage we can get.

We will also be able to give our children and grandchildren a real world example of why science isn't about politics or consensus.

I hope the other countries act on superstition too. It will give us a competitive advantage over them and after the post Costello years we need every advantage we can get.

We will also be able to give our children and grandchildren a real world example of why science isn't about politics or consensus.

Superstition? Years worth of global temperature, arctic permafrost and sea level records and you are comparing all of this to four leaf clovers and lucky rabbit's feet?

The ironic thing is that your mate, Abbott, tried to make this entire issue about politics and a public consensus that he was trying to forge. He never came out and simply said he didn't believe in global warming. He always looked for issues that the public agreed with him on (i.e. How Gillard proposed the legislation, how it would destroy the steel industry) whilst keeping his true opinions very close to his chest. Meanwhile, he was conducting a stealth operation behind the scenes by trying to weaken the key pillars of the environmental movement that operated both in and outside the government i.e. the laughable inquiry into wind farms, slashing our renewable energy target, telling us 'coal was good for humanity', approving the Adani coal mine, being prepared to spend $4 million to bring Bjorn Lomborg to Australia, Abbott knew, as he did in 2009, that he could not change the consensus on the environment overnight. If he came out and just said that he thought that climate change was 'crap' on a national stage (like he did in Beaufort), it would have made him look ridiculous (even more so) and probably would have saved us all a lot of trouble. Therefore, he spent the next two years chipping away at the consensus behind the scenes.

The thing you fail to realize wrecker is that the bulk of the scientific community didn't just come up with this idea because they were bored or needed extra funding. This was a case where science is driving the politics and not where politics is driving the science.

I'll leave this as my last post in this thread. I would like to think of Abbott as a mistake that is best left in the past. Turnbull is no lefty hero but the improvement was shown after Curtis Cheng's shooting. No more waffle about the 'death cult', 'Team Australia' or dog whistles about Islam proving it is a religion of peace. No front page headlines in the nearest NewsCorp paper about the latest draconian security law to be passed. Actual talk about how the Islamic community was one of us, it was the extremists who are the 'other', and talk of 'mutual respect' (the key word being mutual, not one way and that does apply in the truest sense of the word).

And GASP! Turnbull mentioning that he would be putting science at the heart of the nation's agenda! Andrew Bolt's head would have exploded when he heard that one!

Superstition? Years worth of global temperature, arctic permafrost and sea level records and you are comparing all of this to four leaf clovers and lucky rabbit's feet?

The ironic thing is that your mate, Abbott, tried to make this entire issue about politics and a public consensus that he was trying to forge. He never came out and simply said he didn't believe in global warming. He always looked for issues that the public agreed with him on (i.e. How Gillard proposed the legislation, how it would destroy the steel industry) whilst keeping his true opinions very close to his chest. Meanwhile, he was conducting a stealth operation behind the scenes by trying to weaken the key pillars of the environmental movement that operated both in and outside the government i.e. the laughable inquiry into wind farms, slashing our renewable energy target, telling us 'coal was good for humanity', approving the Adani coal mine, being prepared to spend $4 million to bring Bjorn Lomborg to Australia, Abbott knew, as he did in 2006, that he could not change the consensus on the environment overnight. If he came out and just said that he thought that climate change was 'crap' on a national stage (like he did in Beaufort), it would have made him look ridiculous (even more so) and probably would have saved us all a lot of trouble. Therefore, he spent the next two years chipping away at the consensus behind the scenes.

The thing you fail to realize wrecker is that the bulk of the scientific community didn't just come up with this idea because they were bored or needed extra funding. This was a case where science is driving the politics and not where politics is driving the science.

I'll leave this as my last post in this thread. I would like to think of Abbott as a mistake that is best left in the past. Turnbull is no lefty hero but the improvement was shown after Curtis Cheng's shooting. No more waffle about the 'death cult', 'Team Australia' or dog whistles about Islam proving it is a religion of peace. No front page headlines in the nearest NewsCorp paper about the latest draconian security law to be passed. Actual talk about how the Islamic community was one of us, it was the extremists who are the 'other', and talk of 'mutual respect' (the key word being mutual, not one way and that does apply in the truest sense of the word).

And GASP! Turnbull mentioning that he would be putting science at the heart of the nation's agenda! Andrew Bolt's head would have exploded when he heard that one!

why bother, he not stupid so he doesn't care. all we do is give them ammunition, we explain why we feel a certain way about things, then the libs know how to be, to react, to speak. We give them the right words to say, to Us. So their political correctness is tailor made to our ears, or those similar to Us.

wrecka just does not care. he's about winning some perceived game, rather than living life. so to those like that, it doesn't matter. 'never mind', etc. see trump.

More good news that the Abbott like climate, conservative troglodyte, Stephen Harper has been thrown out of office in Canada. His replacement Trudeau may be a good leader, or he may not be but at least he recognises the importance of negotiating for positive climate change policies and action at the next meeting in Paris. Not sure about Turnbull and what he will feel safe doing but I am sure Australia won't now be a spoiler at the Paris Confetence and Canada won't be either. And if Trump wins he won't be in office before next year, so maybe we will get some consensus and commitment from all the major players to act.

Trudeau is just another faux-liberal. Another bleeding heart who panders to a vocal minority on the internet. Yeah, his views on climate change and marijuana are great, but it won't be long before he starts siding with totalitarian "progressives" in an effort to silence controversial ideas and opinions.

I don't trust him.

Superstition? Years worth of global temperature, arctic permafrost and sea level records and you are comparing all of this to four leaf clovers and lucky rabbit's feet?

The ironic thing is that your mate, Abbott, tried to make this entire issue about politics and a public consensus that he was trying to forge. He never came out and simply said he didn't believe in global warming. He always looked for issues that the public agreed with him on (i.e. How Gillard proposed the legislation, how it would destroy the steel industry) whilst keeping his true opinions very close to his chest. Meanwhile, he was conducting a stealth operation behind the scenes by trying to weaken the key pillars of the environmental movement that operated both in and outside the government i.e. the laughable inquiry into wind farms, slashing our renewable energy target, telling us 'coal was good for humanity', approving the Adani coal mine, being prepared to spend $4 million to bring Bjorn Lomborg to Australia, Abbott knew, as he did in 2009, that he could not change the consensus on the environment overnight. If he came out and just said that he thought that climate change was 'crap' on a national stage (like he did in Beaufort), it would have made him look ridiculous (even more so) and probably would have saved us all a lot of trouble. Therefore, he spent the next two years chipping away at the consensus behind the scenes.

The thing you fail to realize wrecker is that the bulk of the scientific community didn't just come up with this idea because they were bored or needed extra funding. This was a case where science is driving the politics and not where politics is driving the science.

I'll leave this as my last post in this thread. I would like to think of Abbott as a mistake that is best left in the past. Turnbull is no lefty hero but the improvement was shown after Curtis Cheng's shooting. No more waffle about the 'death cult', 'Team Australia' or dog whistles about Islam proving it is a religion of peace. No front page headlines in the nearest NewsCorp paper about the latest draconian security law to be passed. Actual talk about how the Islamic community was one of us, it was the extremists who are the 'other', and talk of 'mutual respect' (the key word being mutual, not one way and that does apply in the truest sense of the word).

And GASP! Turnbull mentioning that he would be putting science at the heart of the nation's agenda! Andrew Bolt's head would have exploded when he heard that one!

CBF - It's a shame that is your last post in this thread because i enjoy your contribution. I am even going to post 2 replies to your latest (ok I don't know how to multi post even though I am an expert on the global climate ).

• The irony in your post about Abbott trying to make it about a political or public consensus is that the IPCC is the church of global warming and they are claiming a consensus. Science is not about a vote.
• I welcome balanced enquiries. Just because you are in favour of wind farms and other forms of energy you believe are renewable should not rule out enquiries into them. To say so is naive. Water is essential to life and enquiries into water are essential on so many levels I wont even go into them here
• Coal is good for humanity. Cheap energy is the best way to eradicate poverty
• I am very open minded but I don't even understand the argument for refusing Bjorn Lomborg a place at an Australian University to theorise about the Opportunity Cost of Climate Change policies. I don't agree with Bjorn at all about his assumption on Carbon Dioxide and global warming but I will argue for his right to say it. What is so dangerous about what he has to say that people are trying to shut down?
• Let's hope Turnbull puts science first. I think he might have a Rudd like ego bent on popularism first.
• CBF says "Superstition? Years worth of global temperature, arctic permafrost and sea level records and you are comparing all of this to four leaf clovers and lucky rabbit's feet? Wrecker45 says I keep reverting back to the years of global temperatures and everything that is measurable. It is the alarmist crowd that rely on future models and four leaf clovers.

why bother, he not stupid so he doesn't care. all we do is give them ammunition, we explain why we feel a certain way about things, then the libs know how to be, to react, to speak. We give them the right words to say, to Us. So their political correctness is tailor made to our ears, or those similar to Us.

wrecka just does not care. he's about winning some perceived game, rather than living life. so to those like that, it doesn't matter. 'never mind', etc. see trump.

I'll just remind all those alarmists dee-luded is just one more member of your consensus.

The thing you fail to realize wrecker is that the bulk of the scientific community didn't just come up with this idea because they were bored or needed extra funding. This was a case where science is driving the politics and not where politics is driving the science.

CBF - The Summary for Policy Makers (political Section) of the IPCC reports is finalised before the science. I am happy to go into greater detail and explanation if you have an open mind. I don't say this in a condescending way. By all means if you prove to me that the science comes before the politics I am open to change my mind. The fact is the IPCC has a contention to find Carbon Dioxide has an impact on climate and after the scientists act on that; the Summary for Policy Makers is agreed apon and the politicians agree on the Statements released to the media.

Hey Daisy

I'd never point to individual weather events - that would be a bit silly - it's more a matter of overall trends - and they're only going one way. Up! Things are getting hotter (although of course there will be variations)

I regard Black Saturday itself as probably a global warming event - not just the fact that it was a terrible bushfire - we've had plenty of those before - but because the drought leading up to it and the fire itself broke all kinds of records (eg hottest temp recorded in Melbourne, or, even more significant from a firefighters perspective, spotting at a distance of 35 kilometres - I think the fires in the Yarra valley were caused by embers from the Kinglake ranges )

Anyway, I just reckon we have to keep talking about these things in a rational manner - getting people's backs up won't do much good.

Cheers

We've had terrible (local not global) bush fires previously but not terrible droughts?

Hi Wrecker, interesting point.

From my understanding, the science CAN be falsified, but not until we have a long enough timeline of data. Unfortunately by the time that an entire dataset is available, it may be too late. As I understand it, the scientists are looking at the models and trends and making inferences based on that. Those inferences by and large indicate that the globe is warming. From there, the natural conclusion is to take action to prevent it.

If we do nothing, we may find that when the full data picture is available to provide falsifiability that it's too late and we cannot reverse the effects.

FWIW a close friend of mine works in the BOM in Darwin. He said that he has examined the issue in detail and he concurs with the assessment that the Earth is warming due to human influences. He actually reads and understands the science behind it unlike me, so I will trust his judgement. Having said that, he's a Saints supporter so his judgement may actually be suspect.

Choke - Appreciate your response. If we had rampant global warming over the last 20 years, as predicted, I would be in the alarmist camp. I wouldn't be waiting for a long enough timeline of data. Would you be calling for more time to verify as opposed falsify too if we had warmed as predicted?

Choke - Appreciate your response. If we had rampant global warming over the last 20 years, as predicted, I would be in the alarmist camp. I wouldn't be waiting for a long enough timeline of data. Would you be calling for more time to verify as opposed falsify too if we had warmed as predicted?

Yep, I do indeed think there needs to me more time to verify.

Where we differ though is that I think that the indicative trends show that warming will lead to global problems, and that action must be taken now to arrest it. I think that if we wait for the science to be completely validated (or falsified) the consequences may be catastrophic in the meantime. Better to invest in renewables now while we have the chance. If it turns out to be some exaggerated alarmist claim, then all we've done is create better more efficient ways of producing energy that will benefit us anyway.

Not sure why you've taken such a stance on coal. Even without the considerations regarding global warming it's harmful to the local environment and health of those around it. Better to not be reliant on stuff that's hard to dig out of the ground and is finite. Just makes sense from a future-proofing (and possibly long-term tactical) standpoint.

Yep, I do indeed think there needs to me more time to verify.

Where we differ though is that I think that the indicative trends show that warming will lead to global problems, and that action must be taken now to arrest it. I think that if we wait for the science to be completely validated (or falsified) the consequences may be catastrophic in the meantime. Better to invest in renewables now while we have the chance. If it turns out to be some exaggerated alarmist claim, then all we've done is create better more efficient ways of producing energy that will benefit us anyway.

Not sure why you've taken such a stance on coal. Even without the considerations regarding global warming it's harmful to the local environment and health of those around it. Better to not be reliant on stuff that's hard to dig out of the ground and is finite. Just makes sense from a future-proofing (and possibly long-term tactical) standpoint.

What you are arguing seems remarkably like precautionary principle and this is again where we differ. You can argue anything has massive consequences if you don't adhere to a set of beliefs, so you better just adhere to them, or else. Should I start going to church on a Sunday (instead of the crappy fixture Melbourne keep being dealt) because if I don't I could go to hell? Better just go incase because hell seems like a nasty place...

I'd rather argue the principle than some potential outcome. I'm not a big believer in water being turned into wine but I will be the first investor if someone shows me how. I also don't believe in rampant warming when the models have been proven wrong by evidence and we are relying on the same models to predict future climate.

97% of scientist's agree in a debunked "survey" that humans are having some impact on climate. So do I.

Not sure why you've taken such a stance on coal. Even without the considerations regarding global warming it's harmful to the local environment and health of those around it. Better to not be reliant on stuff that's hard to dig out of the ground and is finite. Just makes sense from a future-proofing (and possibly long-term tactical) standpoint.

I love coal because it is cheap energy and raises people in the 3rd world out of poverty. I'm a humanitarian in that regard.

I am also happy to talk about any harmful consequences of fossil fuels that effect the local environment or health of those around it. That is where the argument should be at. Carbon Dioxide is plant food and good for the planet. Let's talk about harmful emissions and their consequence and mitigate against them.

CBF - It's a shame that is your last post in this thread because i enjoy your contribution. I am even going to post 2 replies to your latest (ok I don't know how to multi post even though I am an expert on the global climate ).

• The irony in your post about Abbott trying to make it about a political or public consensus is that the IPCC is the church of global warming and they are claiming a consensus. Science is not about a vote.
• I welcome balanced enquiries. Just because you are in favour of wind farms and other forms of energy you believe are renewable should not rule out enquiries into them. To say so is naive. Water is essential to life and enquiries into water are essential on so many levels I wont even go into them here
• Coal is good for humanity. Cheap energy is the best way to eradicate poverty
• I am very open minded but I don't even understand the argument for refusing Bjorn Lomborg a place at an Australian University to theorise about the Opportunity Cost of Climate Change policies. I don't agree with Bjorn at all about his assumption on Carbon Dioxide and global warming but I will argue for his right to say it. What is so dangerous about what he has to say that people are trying to shut down?
• Let's hope Turnbull puts science first. I think he might have a Rudd like ego bent on popularism first.
• CBF says "Superstition? Years worth of global temperature, arctic permafrost and sea level records and you are comparing all of this to four leaf clovers and lucky rabbit's feet? Wrecker45 says I keep reverting back to the years of global temperatures and everything that is measurable. It is the alarmist crowd that rely on future models and four leaf clovers.

What you are arguing seems remarkably like precautionary principle and this is again where we differ. You can argue anything has massive consequences if you don't adhere to a set of beliefs, so you better just adhere to them, or else. Should I start going to church on a Sunday (instead of the crappy fixture Melbourne keep being dealt) because if I don't I could go to hell? Better just go incase because hell seems like a nasty place...

I'd rather argue the principle than some potential outcome. I'm not a big believer in water being turned into wine but I will be the first investor if someone shows me how. I also don't believe in rampant warming when the models have been proven wrong by evidence and we are relying on the same models to predict future climate.

97% of scientist's agree in a debunked "survey" that humans are having some impact on climate. So do I.

Huh?

still think over-population is a bigger problem and just as catastrophic to humanity and the planet, and doesn't need a complex model to predict

but let's keep ignoring it

still think over-population is a bigger problem and just as catastrophic to humanity and the planet, and doesn't need a complex model to predict

but let's keep ignoring it

Without a planet there is no such thing as over-population.

deep

still think over-population is a bigger problem and just as catastrophic to humanity and the planet, and doesn't need a complex model to predict

but let's keep ignoring it

nature has its wayz of balance, & nothing will stop that.

another myth propagator

still think over-population is a bigger problem and just as catastrophic to humanity and the planet, and doesn't need a complex model to predict

but let's keep ignoring it

DC I agree with you we have two major problems. Climate change and over population; ignoring the power of vested interests we could start to solve global warming tomorrow. We have the technology, just not the political will. Reduce temperature increases to plus 2 degrees and we have a chance. On the second problem of over population that is much harder to resolve. It is all political, cultural and as a subset religious. It could be dealt with in a generation in theory but it won't be because well there are no political systems in place that can tackle it directly, how do you stop people having kids in a multitude of poor countries across the globe? Anyway having one intractable problem should not stop you solving one that can be resolved. One step at a time When!

We should be going full bore to replace old energy with new energy technologies. Once you decide it has to be done it will boost to economic activity generally but yes there will be winners and losers, like there has with every technological change.

a bit like the uncle in the family earl, no one wants to talk about

just ignore it and it will go away

or priests fiddling with little kids

too hard a problem and there are more important things. things to make a quid off