On 04/04/2016 at 6:56 AM, Wrecker45 said:

Does the helicopter pilot blame carbon dioxide for the change? I wonder if the helicopter pilot looks exactly the same as he did 20 years ago or if his appearance has changed naturally over time.

Perhaps I am going bald because of climate change.

Well in all fairness, if he was thousands of years old, then there may well have been little to no change in the pilot's appearance over a period of 20 years.

4 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

I only had a small bald patch before saturday. Now i am completely bald except for 2 hairs and they have turned grey.

you really have to stop looking back, checking yourself out in the mirror wrecka.

On 4/6/2016 at 1:16 PM, hardtack said:

Well in all fairness, if he was thousands of years old, then there may well have been little to no change in the pilot's appearance over a period of 20 years.

Fair call. Given the earth is billions of years old whatever has happened recently is just a blip. (Hiatus and all )

On 7 April 2016 at 11:24 PM, Wrecker45 said:

Fair call. Given the earth is billions of years old whatever has happened recently is just a blip. (Hiatus and all )

Yes I note how many things are melting or bleaching during the so called hiatus! Funny how glaciers melt, forests that have never burned in Tasmania for thousands of years, burn, how reefs that have never bleached in the last 400 years are now bleaching, all this during a period of cooling apparently. It is truely baffling unless you thought that maybe it is getting warmer, but then you have to check the models and if they have some error then it is all rubbish! 

13 hours ago, Earl Hood said:

Yes I note how many things are melting or bleaching during the so called hiatus! Funny how glaciers melt, forests that have never burned in Tasmania for thousands of years, burn, how reefs that have never bleached in the last 400 years are now bleaching, all this during a period of cooling apparently. It is truely baffling unless you thought that maybe it is getting warmer, but then you have to check the models and if they have some error then it is all rubbish! 

the other side keeps playing the its natural idea so we need not do anything.

 

If an Asteroid the size of a small shop comes at us,  that's natural as well.

The thing is climate change is a threat to us & our ways of producing food to our well being from massive storms, or winds, rough seas,  & really rising tide heights.

 

We in Victoria,  stupidly blasted & dredged the Rip in recent years,  allowing more depth & width for ships,  & changing the currents down southern bay, (its altering the current flows),  this has allowed faster flows & more water in & out,  at our current tide heights.   As the sea levels rise,  we'll have Less protection to some extent,  allowing water to rush through at a quicker rate causing higher  'high tides'  right up the bay.  Up around Brighton, Stkilda & Elwood's low lying areas.  and around Currum,  Kananook waterways.

 

The point is not if its natural,  the point is we will have to try to protect against the worse effects that all this will bring upon us.

On 9 April 2016 at 9:50 PM, Earl Hood said:

Yes I note how many things are melting or bleaching during the so called hiatus! Funny how glaciers melt, forests that have never burned in Tasmania for thousands of years, burn, how reefs that have never bleached in the last 400 years are now bleaching, all this during a period of cooling apparently. It is truely baffling unless you thought that maybe it is getting warmer, but then you have to check the models and if they have some error then it is all rubbish! 

My favourite bit is where you say forests that have never burned before are burning. I couldn't even script that.

On 28 April 2016 at 1:39 PM, Wrecker45 said:

My favourite bit is where you say forests that have never burned before are burning. I couldn't even script that.

Wrecker just google some of the articles on the Tasy fires. 1000 to 1500 year old native pine forests burnt out, they won't regenerate. It seems to me this doent happen too often. 

These forests are not associated with periodic fires we associate with ecculypt species. 

On Tuesday, May 03, 2016 at 9:07 PM, Earl Hood said:

Wrecker just google some of the articles on the Tasy fires. 1000 to 1500 year old native pine forests burnt out, they won't regenerate. It seems to me this doent happen too often. 

These forests are not associated with periodic fires we associate with ecculypt species. 

This is why sceptics are winning the debate and climate change is off the political agenda.

Facts win out in the long run not alarmism.

Pine trees are highly flammable. Any insinuation that a pine forest burning down is some kind of proof of climate change is just laughable.

 

9 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

This is why sceptics are winning the debate and climate change is off the political agenda.

Facts win out in the long run not alarmism.

Pine trees are highly flammable. Any insinuation that a pine forest burning down is some kind of proof of climate change is just laughable.

 

HAHAHA! Gold!

I know we're on opposite sides of the debate Wrecker, but I have to appreciate good comedy when I see it.

I might even repeat this one to some of greener friends just for laughs.

8 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

This is why sceptics are winning the debate and climate change is off the political agenda.

Facts win out in the long run not alarmism.

Pine trees are highly flammable. Any insinuation that a pine forest burning down is some kind of proof of climate change is just laughable.

 

Native pine forests that are vulnerable to fire that have existed for hundreds of thousands of years, made up of individual King Billy Pine trees that are 1000 to 1500 years old that grew so old without fire means that these forests haven't experienced fire very often.

Is this logic too much for you to comprehend? 

your mantra that OZ forests (eucalypts) have always burned does not count here! 

 

 

 

On 5/5/2016 at 1:08 PM, Choke said:

HAHAHA! Gold!

I know we're on opposite sides of the debate Wrecker, but I have to appreciate good comedy when I see it.

I might even repeat this one to some of greener friends just for laughs.

Choke I thought you were an expert on this?

We are talking about fully grown pine trees here. Not growing or freshly cut. They are highly flammable. It is amazing you think otherwise. Please point me to your greener mates who somehow believe pine trees are non-flammable. I have a good pyramid scheme I can sell them.

22 hours ago, Earl Hood said:

Native pine forests that are vulnerable to fire that have existed for hundreds of thousands of years, made up of individual King Billy Pine trees that are 1000 to 1500 years old that grew so old without fire means that these forests haven't experienced fire very often.

Is this logic too much for you to comprehend? 

your mantra that OZ forests (eucalypts) have always burned does not count here! 

 

 

 

EH - The earth is billions of years old. What happened to the King Billy Pines 1,000 to 1,500 years ago? 

I like that you have changed your tune and are now writing that the pine forests haven't experienced fire very often as opposed to your above post which said pine forests are burning that have never burned before.

 

On 5/5/2016 at 10:00 PM, Earl Hood said:

 

your mantra that OZ forests (eucalypts) have always burned does not count here! 

 

 

 

I have not once talked about OZ forests but since you keep bringing it up I will remind you it is global warming we are talking about. 

 

On 6 May 2016 at 8:49 PM, Wrecker45 said:

EH - The earth is billions of years old. What happened to the King Billy Pines 1,000 to 1,500 years ago? 

I like that you have changed your tune and are now writing that the pine forests haven't experienced fire very often as opposed to your above post which said pine forests are burning that have never burned before.

 

Wrecker stop nit picking I didn't change my tune at all. The Tasmanian ecosystems in question according to scientists have been destroyed by the fires, they won't be regenerating because they evolved over millions of years without the influence of fire, unlike eculypt forests that evolved with fire and developed ways to withstand fire and regenerate after fires. Seems like a bit of a problem to me that ecosystems that have not experienced fires of this magnitude for thousands to millions of years are now destroyed but of course using your logic this is not a problem because the world is billions of years old and whatever has happened has likely happened before at some stage so stay calm citizens, sit on the fence and do nothing, it is just nature doing its thing as it has always done. Let's ignore all the evidence that the rate of deterioration in our environment, that is the fundamentals that we and countless other species need to survive, and what is causing it, is unprecedented in the history we know. 

But hey don't worry it has all happened before at least once in the last few billion years.ACCORDING TO YOUR ARGUMENT! 

 

11 hours ago, Earl Hood said:

Wrecker stop nit picking I didn't change my tune at all. The Tasmanian ecosystems in question according to scientists have been destroyed by the fires, they won't be regenerating because they evolved over millions of years without the influence of fire, unlike eculypt forests that evolved with fire and developed ways to withstand fire and regenerate after fires. Seems like a bit of a problem to me that ecosystems that have not experienced fires of this magnitude for thousands to millions of years are now destroyed but of course using your logic this is not a problem because the world is billions of years old and whatever has happened has likely happened before at some stage so stay calm citizens, sit on the fence and do nothing, it is just nature doing its thing as it has always done. Let's ignore all the evidence that the rate of deterioration in our environment, that is the fundamentals that we and countless other species need to survive, and what is causing it, is unprecedented in the history we know. 

But hey don't worry it has all happened before at least once in the last few billion years.

 

Sorry to nit pick again but when you keep contradicting yourself it is hard not to.

It is funny you write that what is happening is unprecedented then in the next sentence you acknowledge it has happened before.

Of course it will just be shrugged off by those on here that apparently know more than the scientists out in the field, but for what it's worth:

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/global-warming-milestone-about-to-be-passed-and-theres-no-going-back-20160509-goqcm0.html

 

On 5 May 2016 at 0:57 PM, Wrecker45 said:

 

Nothing worth noting! 

Interesting HT but I am sure W45 would say the earth has been here before in the last billion years, so why panic now. It's nature doing what it does. 

1 hour ago, hardtack said:

Of course it will just be shrugged off by those on here that apparently know more than the scientists out in the field, but for what it's worth:

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/global-warming-milestone-about-to-be-passed-and-theres-no-going-back-20160509-goqcm0.html

 

Fantastic news. Carbon Dioxide has reached 400 ppm and the world hasn't warmed anywhere near even the minimum predictions for this threshold. Any logical person would rule out Carbon Dioxide as a driver of climate.

1 hour ago, Wrecker45 said:

Fantastic news. Carbon Dioxide has reached 400 ppm and the world hasn't warmed anywhere near even the minimum predictions for this threshold. Any logical person would rule out Carbon Dioxide as a driver of climate.

No fool like an old fool.

On 5/10/2016 at 0:22 AM, hardtack said:

No fool like an old fool.

Too right.

I keep pointing out that the earth has previously been hotter, wetter, colder and higher in CO2 ppm.

The fools argument is that Carbon Dioxide is driving climate. The leading body of the fools is the IPCC who have well documented predictions dating back to the early 90's that completely overstated the warming that has actually occurred since industrialization. 

 

1 minute ago, Wrecker45 said:

Too right.

I keep pointing out that the earth has previously been hotter, wetter, colder and higher in CO2 ppm.

The fools argument is that Carbon Dioxide is driving climate. The leading body of the fools is the IPCC who have well documented predictions dating back to the early 90's that completely overstated the warming that has actually occurred since industrialization. 

 

By all means please go and inform the various bodies and govts who have signed on to the accord. Obviously you are far more knowledgable than those mere scientists and assorted researchers that they listen to.

3 minutes ago, hardtack said:

By all means please go and inform the various bodies and govts who have signed on to the accord. Obviously you are far more knowledgable than those mere scientists and assorted researchers that they listen to.

The same ones that said the drought we were having would be permanent?

1 hour ago, Wrecker45 said:

The same ones that said the drought we were having would be permanent?

No, the whole lot of them all over the planet that have been advising their respective governments.  It is patently obvious that you have infinitely more knowledge than those charlatans masquerading as climate scientists/experts.  Organise a global summit and explain to those world leaders just exactly how they have been duped.  I'm certain that they will all feel all the more informed as a result and immediately renege on the accord, having seen the light.

10 hours ago, hardtack said:

No, the whole lot of them all over the planet that have been advising their respective governments.  It is patently obvious that you have infinitely more knowledge than those charlatans masquerading as climate scientists/experts.  Organise a global summit and explain to those world leaders just exactly how they have been duped.  I'm certain that they will all feel all the more informed as a result and immediately renege on the accord, having seen the light.

Einstein who knew a little bit about science famously said "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

I'm happy to stick with Einstein and you can have "the whole lot of them all over the planet", whatever that means.

4 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

Einstein who knew a little bit about science famously said "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong."

I'm happy to stick with Einstein and you can have "the whole lot of them all over the planet", whatever that means.

Funnily enough, using the logic you have used through this entire debate, you would have dismissed Einstein out of hand.

The fact that you can't grasp the meaning of the sentence containing the words "all over the world" when discussing a global climate change accord, speaks volumes.