The great global warming scam, worth a listen I think.

[Old McDonald]

I'm a farmers son .. so I work and farm .. I'll be working on various tasks outside of farming as well as farming as I have done since an early age. I'm not going to waste time jumping to a pointless excercise in attempting to refute science papers where £ Billions is given out freely to the chosen few.

That is a matter of politics. The political fight is far more worthwhile given it is politics which forces the Western poor to pay Climate Taxes whilst the rich gain wealth, destroy jobs and make money off imports .. imports which don't pay climate taxes.


My point all along has been that Climate Science focuses on a few gases which can be taxed, legislated and regulated. Yet all elements increase the temperature of the Earth and all contribute to cooling .. which is literally Thermodynamics. I note that includes your Climate Gases ..


Seeing as Climate Models don't work how can "Climate Science" be settled ?

In the past few years the models have so far out that the temperature data has had to be changed .. blaming the changes on the absoption of the sea.

The water cycle, milankovitch cycles and thermodynamics are all established science and more credible than "Climate Science" .. which as yet has to even show working models where the science can be repeated.

So there are your examples which I really shouldn't have to find research papers for ..

As regards your farming accomplishments, well done. As a farmers son I've kept the farm running but as we all know farming doesn't earn very much money .. so no I wouldn't be interested in doing what you have done, sorry. I have done various things in my life I am proud about but don't feel the need to brag .. I'm sure making large companies more efficient has done some measure towards "Saving the planet" whilst increasing peoples quality of life without bias.

Your the one bullying all along attempting to use 200 years of science papers like some kind of blunt weapon when faced with the fact that Climate Science just doesn't work at the moment. It's not my fault all the scientists involved can't replicate the real world nor my fault Climate Scientists change the evidence on a regular basis. This kind of bullying is seen as a behaviour throughout the Left of politics with George Monbiot using papers with total disregard of their basis in fact as justification for introducing draconian policy.

You might not have mentioned Politics but I did .. from the first post I made. I have gone over quicky what I did post and my basis has always been the same - pointing out the narrow focus of Climate Science and the fact the Western poor are punished using Climate Taxes and regulation - something I note you've never admitted.

Let me know if Climate Science one day actually replicates the real world and moves on from being a belief system.

I won't be rushing to create science papers but you can be assured I am already involved in politics and that I believe can and will make a difference.

@ollie989898 and @Dave645 have already posted pretty much the same as I would have done in a full response to you.

You are both confused and confusing. I suggest that if you are so tired and overworked that you stop posting after midnight and go to bed instead.

Climate models (which we both agree are useless) forecast the future. Nobody can do that. Any guesses must be qualified with many “If” scenarios.

You asked why I was not “saving the planet”. I merely told you what I had done. No bragging, just the way I have chosen to live my life.

Your quoted “cycles” are not settled science. We went through all this way back in this thread. You should have read the posts at the time. What is most definitely settled is the work of those to whom I have referred you on more than one occasion. They did not even recognise themselves as Climate Scientists. You refuse to accept their findings whilst at the same time refusing to give any evidence against them. So long as you refuse to do so there is absolutely no point in attempting to debate anything.

At #1731 you invent things again. Also continue with your obsession about models. I do not have any scientific papers. I can read and understand what has been demonstrated since 200 years ago, and yet again I tell you nobody has proved them wrong.

 

[ollie989898]

NASA data:

 

[wanton dwarf]

Climate models (which we both agree are useless) forecast the future. Nobody can do that. Any guesses must be qualified with many “If” scenarios.

Science isn't about guesses.

I don't know of any science involving energy which cannot calculate within a scientific margin of error what is going to happen.

 

[ollie989898]

Science isn't about guesses.

I don't know of any science involving energy which cannot calculate within a scientific margin of error what is going to happen.

Again you are being extremely naive or disingenuous to suggest that current technology can give accurate or meaningful predictions about something as hugely complex as the climate.

 

[wanton dwarf]

Again you are being extremely naive or disingenuous to suggest that current technology can give accurate or meaningful predictions about something as hugely complex as the climate.

I dont think so .. the calculations should be relatively straight forward. Certainly there should have been models which under estimated as well as over estimated. It turned out they all over estimated.

Get out of jail free card.

Regardless the model over exaggerated massively. Therefore the climate taxes instituted do not represent the real world.

Nor do the taxes tackle the CO2 directly, in fact for the rich they are avoided AND they make money.

 

[ollie989898]

I dont think so .. the calculations should be relatively straight forward. Certainly there should have been models which under estimated as well as over estimated. It turned out they all over estimated.

Get out of jail free card.

Regardless the model over exaggerated massively. Therefore the climate taxes instituted do not represent the real world.

Nor do the taxes tackle the CO2 directly, in fact for the rich they are avoided AND they make money.

LOL.

OK Einstein. Should be relatively straight forward. Stop trolling and GTFO out of this thread you joker.

 

[wanton dwarf]

LOL.

OK Einstein. Should be relatively straight forward. Stop trolling and GTFO out of this thread you joker.

The amount of energy hitting the Earth is straight forward. The average loss of energy to space is straight forward. The increase in CO2 is known. The factor of insulation from CO2 can be gathered from the rise in CO2 levels and temperatures.

 

[ollie989898]

The amount of energy hitting the Earth is straight forward. The average loss of energy to space is straight forward. The increase in CO2 is known. The factor of insulation from CO2 can be gathered from the rise in CO2 levels and temperatures.

Straight forward, but not for us mere mortals on Earth. If only climate science had someone of your immense intellect to aid it.

Please, just for my personal lulz, explain how you intend to prove just the 'average loss of energy to space'....

 

[wanton dwarf]

Straight forward, but not for us mere mortals on Earth. If only climate science had someone of your immense intellect to aid it.

Please, just for my personal lulz, explain how you intend to prove just the 'average loss of energy to space'....

It's not me who has been quoting 200 years of science.

I'm testing what level of your scientific knowledge is. You're all are on here spouting 200 years of science and want to make a fool of anyone that thinks you don't have the full facts.

Let's see what you know other than pasting in graphs.

 

[Dave645]

It's not me who has been quoting 200 years of science.

I'm testing what level of your scientific knowledge is. You're all are on here spouting 200 years of science and want to make a fool of anyone that thinks you don't have the full facts.

Let's see what you know other than pasting in graphs.

Lol, ok we don’t need to, or try to make anyone look a fool, the data results speak for them selves as does the science, you can also see the results of climate change with our own eyes, the changes are all there to see.
We do get people making sweeping statements like co2 has no effect, it’s not man made it’s this, or that, but the facts don’t fit their explanations, or the evidence, the science, or what most people can see with their own eyes. Yet they persist, you yourself seem to take great issues with climate taxes, the share the UK and the rest of the world are paying, we Live in an imperfect world, the Paris agreements made no one happy no country wanted to tax their population or industry, yet they agreed to do so. Even China agreed to changes, and they are actually doing those changes.

If you keep up with climate news, you will have read the dangers the perma frost melting has flagging up, and the effects it could have?

The math you asked for is impossable if it wasn’t we would have done it by now. The fact you throw 200 years of science under the bus because of the fact we cannot do the impossable seems a desperate move to dispute the facts, the facts are plain to see by anyone, you don’t need a PHD in climate science to see the changes that are all around us.

We have science, evidence and data on our side of the argument, you have yet to provide this forum any of those things.

With all the money the fossil fuel industry has pumped into science and it will stand to lose in the future, you would think they would have commisioned a few scientists to find proof climate change was fake? And your a fool if you believe if they had that evidence they would not use it the fact they haven’t found any scientific evidence in the last 40 years to deny climate change and it’s causes says a lot. So they turned to public opinion as it’s the public that decide these things not governments, they seed doubt and other rubbish to cloud the truth, to delay changes to protect their wealth and incomes they try to rig the game, change laws make every effort to undermine changes that upset the monopolies they controlled, this is plain to see in the USA with some of the things the states are doing to undermine the renewables industry. While the power companies themselves install renewables as fast as they can. I think in one state they made it illegal to install roof top solar on private houses. This is big business (the rich) using the law to defend their profits while taking advantage of renewable tech themselves. At least in the UK they haven’t done that, incentives have dropped off as costs of systems have fallen which is how it should be.
If you don’t want to look a fool then back up your statements and conclusions with scientific papers, data, and plain visible evidence in the world around us that we are wrong. The fact the fossil fuel industry has failed to do this for 40 years with all it’s money, says a lot. . .

They have relied on misinformation misleading statements and have people posting misleading YouTube videos, the fact they are still influencing laws into their favour even now, they are buying the outcomes they want dispite the evidence is the criminal shame of this world we live in. They are risking the worlds stability for a short term profit.

 

[Old McDonald]

Il check back in a year and see how you all are doing.. Expect next year to be worse than the current one and so on and so forth.

I'm interested because our food supply is under threat and that is reason enough.

This is an extremely serious subject and some of you are behaving like children, ridicule all you like but co2 driving climate is the biggest laugh in here

I am prepared to make a small wager that you are reading the posts on this thread.

Anyone like you who predicts the future and makes statements to the effect that he is willing to bet his house on his predictions, then refuses to follow through on his declared willingness deserves to be ridiculed.

State what your bet is and, as already posted, I will consider it. Over many years I have come across a lot of your sort - open your mouth and offer bets that you cannot undertake, so you back down. You do your cause a lot of harm by being so stupid.

 

[Old McDonald]

So, how come a man in 1500 was able to draw a very accurate map of the place?

First I have heard about this. I am interested. Please share your source and sho a copy of the map.

 

[joe soapy]

its on the net, might be 1760 or so

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/01/02/piri-reis-map-of-1513/

what you thing i am, your personel google search

 

[wilber]

its on the net, might be 1760 or so

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/01/02/piri-reis-map-of-1513/

what you thing i am, your personel google search

Do you even read what you post as evidence?

 

[joe soapy]

yes i do cant help being 200 years adrift, seems it was 1500 not 1700, some even put the date 4000 years BC

 

[wilber]

I was referencing the information in the link you posted.....

People believe it to be a map of south america, which is far more likely, Unless of course you believe in ancient lizard aliens and nibiru.

 

[Old McDonald]

its on the net, might be 1760 or so

https://www.thevintagenews.com/2018/01/02/piri-reis-map-of-1513/

what you thing i am, your personel google search

Thank you for your impolite reply to my polite question. I had done a search and found nothing. Having read the link, I have to add that @wilber is correct. Here is a quote from the link:

"The jury is still out on the question of whether the Piri Reis Map shows Antarctica or not."

I was genuinely interested because I have been in Portugal for a few years and have learned a lot more about the navigational escapades of this nation than I knew previously. For example the Azores (which is where I hope my next place will be) were at least partially discovered in the 1300s. They had a King known as Henry the Navigator a while later. Vasco da Gama found the sea route to India soon after Columbus' American expedition. I did already know that much. I was keen to see whether there was any Portuguese connection to your original assertion.

 

[Farmer Roy]

"The science [of man-made global warming] is pretty unequivocal and the idea that you can subvert it and create doubt is not just irresponsible, it's diabolical," he says


You can't help farmers if you won't tackle climate change, farmer tells government

Goondiwindi grain and cattle producer Peter Mailler says heat and inconsistent rain have made farming so tough he thinks his parents' five MW solar farm could be a better bet. Wayne Pratt

• Share on twitter

by Ben Potter

Peter Mailler, a third-generation grain and cattle grower who sent pregnant cows for slaughter this week because he can't feed them all, has a message from drought-stricken northern NSW to the Turnbull government.

It is aimed especially at the Nationals and their former leader Barnaby Joyce – against whom Mr Mailler ran in last December's byelection – as well as ex-PM Tony Abbott and other coal power-friendly Coalition figures.

First, don't pretend to champion drought-struck farmers if you're not prepared to tackle climate change – because the increasing frequency of extremely hot, dry weather is compounding the effects of drought by impairing crops' ability to use what rain they do get.

Second, don't talk about giving coal-fired power "a free kick" in the National Energy Guarantee (NEG) when a full accounting of its environmental costs will tell you not that we can't afford to close coal plants but that "we can't afford to run one tomorrow".

Peter Mailler says agriculture is working towards becoming carbon neutral but it is a challenge because it uses so much diesel fuel for machinery and transport. Wayne Pratt
Third, don't lean on high-risk, struggling industries like agriculture for deeper carbon emissions cuts when the stable, regulated electricity industry can obviously bear a larger share of the burden.


Last, the impacts of climate change on farming families threaten the survival of the Nationals' support base in rural and regional Australia, so it is time for the Coalition to dispense with "undermining science" and have an honest debate about climate change.

"In a normal year we produce enough grain to feed about 7000 families and I am flat out educating my kids," Mr Mailler tells The Australian Financial Review from his near 2420-hectare property near Goondiwindi on the NSW-Queensland border.

"I actually don't see a pathway for my kids to come back – and some of them want to." His parents built a five-megawatt solar farm on their property when they retired and he thinks this could be a better bet.

Mr Mailler says the conversation needs to be more robust. "If Turnbull and his cohort are nor prepared to diligently install some truth in the debate then what's the point?" he says.

Coal-friendly coailtion MPs Craig Kelly, Eric Abetz, Tony Abbott, Barnaby Joyce and Kevin Andrews are doing farmers no favours, Peter Mailler says. Alex Ellinghausen
First, "you cannot fix the energy problem if you are going to ignore climate ... because you are working on the wrong set of assumptions", says Mr Mailler, who trained as an agricultural scientist before returning to his parents' farm and then striking out on his own.

A 'free kick' for electricity
That makes it "disingenuous" and "hypocritical" for Mr Joyce to stand shoulder to shoulder with farmers and say "we have got to do something about the drought and not say we have got to do something about climate change".

Mr Mailler says politicians have the resources to find out the truth "yet we have politicians who spend all their time trying to undermine science and create doubt".

Moree in northern NSW sweated through an unprecedented heatwave in January and February of 2017. Supplied
"The science [of man-made global warming] is pretty unequivocal and the idea that you can subvert it and create doubt is not just irresponsible, it's diabolical," he says.

"They are talking about trying to claw back more emissions from agriculture and they are talking about giving electricity a free kick. It's ridiculous."

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg will propose a "coal-friendly" side deal for the NEG at Tuesday's party room meeting to try to win over climate change sceptics.

Critics say the NEG is already too coal-friendly because it only requires a pro rata 26 per cent carbon emissions cut from the electricity sector. CSIRO advised the government that grid emissions would have to be cut by 52 per cent to 70 per cent for Australia to meet the government's Paris pledge for an economy-wide 26 per cent cut because it is much more costly to cut emissions in other industries.

Environment and Energy Minister Josh Frydenberg and Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull will try to win backbench sceptics over the NEG with a coal-friendly side-deal. Alex Ellinghausen
Mr Mailler says agriculture is itself working towards becoming carbon neutral but it is a challenge because agriculture uses so much diesel fuel for machinery and transport.

"The hardest thing to solve is transport. The simplest thing to change is static electricity. If you look at it, coal-fired power generators are coming to the end of their life. The idea that you could have politicians effectively saying we should build more of them and have them for another 50 years is absurd."

Heat and rain: Double whammy
Mr Mailler's position is influenced by bitter experience as well as science. In January 2014, the nearest Bureau of Meteorology station at Moree recorded a record high of 47.3 degrees Celsius, and everyone said it was "a one-in-a-hundred year event".

Yallourn coal-fired power station in Victoria's Latrobe Valley. Carla Gottgens
That one day wiped out crops and cost the region hundreds of millions of dollars in production, he says. But it didn't get the same attention as losses from cyclones, which are more visible.

In February last year the one-in-a-hundred year event happened again, only this time it came with a record run of days over 35 degrees.

Biochemical reactions like photosynthesis are optimised at 37-38 degrees. But at extreme high temperatures plants go into shock and the photosynthesis process is degraded.

As well, rain is increasingly coming in big dumps followed by dry spells, which make it harder for young plants to get going than if less rain falls more frequently.

"In some of those scenarios we have adequate moisture but we can't handle the heat. People are unable to get ahead. Even though some of those years before we have had significant rainfall, the way it's fallen in big dumps has been problematic and the heat has meant we are not able to use that rainfall as effectively as we have in the past."

Recent analysis in the McIntyre Valley indicates that irrigators' water use efficiency is down 30 per cent, and for dryland farmers 60 per cent, Mr Mailler says. Another measure is the inability to get consecutive good years or even one in five – the minimum to build resilience – for more than 20 years.

The last really good year in his region was 1996, Mr Mailler says – which gave him the confidence to strike out on his own.

"I have no doubt that in my lifetime weather patterns have shifted significantly. I don't know many farmers who would dispute that the climate has changed," he says.


"And it's obviously going to get worse."

 

[Farmer Roy]

CHANGING TUNES
How can we talk about heatwaves without mentioning climate change?
By Akshat RathiJuly 28, 2018
The world is suffering from extreme weather.

Heatwaves have killed 50 in Canada and 80 in Japan, caused drought in Germany and Scandinavia, set record temperatures in Algeria, Morocco, and Oman, and left the UK looking brown from space. The heat has spurred wildfires that have claimed at least 80 lives in Greece, melted electrical wires in California, and forced Sweden to call for international help.

This is not normal. Weather is a localized phenomenon to which long-term climate trends contribute. The more greenhouse gases we put into the atmosphere, the warmer the climate gets and the more likely these extreme weather events become. Put another way, climate change adds fuel to the fire.

The world’s five hottest years on record are (in ranked order): 2016, 2015, 2017, 2014, and 2010. “The sort of temperatures that are occurring now would’ve been a one-in-a-thousand occurrence in the 1950s,” Joanna Haigh, of the Grantham Institute for Climate Change, told the BBC. “Now, they are about a one-in-10 occurrence.”

The trouble is, the average person is unlikely to make the connection between climate change and weather events. Take the US, for example. Among the 127 segments run on the country’s TV networks about heatwaves this summer, only one mentioned the connection between climate change and extreme heat, according to a study published by Media Matters.

Legacy radio and print did a slightly better job, but even they struggled to ascertain how to mention climate change in the context of breaking-news events, such as the wildfires in Greece. That said, on Friday, research was published from a group of scientists that looked at seven weather stations in northern Europe and concluded climate change made these heatwaves twice as likely. It was only the 12th story on the BBC News global homepage—underneath “LeBron James ‘regrets’ giving son his name.”

Not so long ago the image of a polar bear on a melting iceberg was the symbol of climate change. Though it evoked sympathy, it also reinforced the idea that the impacts of climate change are physically distant. Over the last few years, however, extreme weather events have brought the impact much closer to home and increased public understanding of the risks, according to a 2017 study. Recent polls back up the claim, with more and more people accepting the link between human-caused climate change and the recent spate of weather-driven devastations.

But fear doesn’t motivate everyone. For some, the message is better delivered through finding common ground. In the end, whatever the means, it’s important we connect the dots on climate change. We aren’t going to find the solution to humanity’s greatest challenge without acknowledging the problem and its sheer scale.

This was published in the weekend edition of the Quartz Daily Brief, our news summary that’s tailored for morning delivery in Asia, Europe and Africa, the

 

[Farmer Roy]

http://www.abc.net.au/radio/program...calling-for-action-on-climate-change/10122998