Global warming not going away

[Hawkamania!]

The smiley version of the white flag often used by the global warming cult flies again long after the demise of bp.

I claim that the Arctic Sea Ice is influenced by many factors causing it to grow and shrink, while you claim its all going down due to CO2 influenced global warming which is contrary to the evidence proving the claims of alarmists being wrong. This claim of yours is nothing more than outright fraud.

The proof that the Arctic Sea Ice has not dropped drastically in two decades is here http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/deetest/deetmp.369.png. All you have is data adjusted by people behind the Climategate team.

Any other adjusted data or spin you want to bring to the table via penny wong's office?

 

[panama]

If this issue was so important as we have been lead to believe, by the likes of Rudd and Gore.... why have they done nothing in the last 3 to 4 years?

Gore actually had the chance to be President of the most powerful country, but obviously didn't feel this topic was important enough to put himself in a position to actually make changes and lead the world. Gore lost the 2000 election by a whisker, to one of the most unpopular leaders in history, yet could of challenged again in 2004 and would have been a certainty to win, but didn't put his name up.

Al Gore has been making millions travelling the world telling his story on Global Warming, no doubt making more money that way than ever via being President of America

The simple fact is people are losing interest as they see no great change or leaders not backing up their words in the seriousness that they make out the situation to be.

 

[medusala]

So you want to shoot the messenger, that's your prerogative. The quote is not from the blog, it's from this paper: The draft paper "Global Surface Temperature Change" by Hansen, Ruedy, Sato and Lo is available at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/paper/gistemp2010_draft0601.pdf.

Let me guess, they are corrupt too and so is their data.

Hansen and GISS have had to correct data a couple of times in the past. Hansen's warming models are also a source of great mirth.

 

[King Elvis]

The simple fact is people are losing interest as they see no great change or leaders not backing up their words in the seriousness that they make out the situation to be.

The state of the River Murray is both more immediately important, and easier to address, than Global Warming, yet nobody will even do that properly.

 

[panama]

The state of the River Murray is both more immediately important, and easier to address, than Global Warming, yet nobody will even do that properly.

Well Garrett was making that a great importance when he started off in the current government.

I'd rather see money spent on drought proofing our country, because the way things are going now, in 10 years we'll be buying our fruit from China, rather than getting it from our local producers.

 

[Doctor Jolly]

The state of the River Murray is both more immediately important, and easier to address, than Global Warming, yet nobody will even do that properly.

And how exactly is that done.

The only way to save the murray is to reduce irrigation to increase flows, which means the farmers cant survive, which means the bread bowl of Australia produces less food.

 

[King Elvis]

Recent floodwaters are being stored (ie, evaporating) upstream, because, god forbid, some of that water actually makes it to the mouth.

The River is dying, everybody knows it, and nothing is being done.

Do you think the farmers will survive if the river system collapses?

 

[Doctor Jolly]

Recent floodwaters are being stored (ie, evaporating) upstream, because, god forbid, some of that water actually makes it to the mouth.

The River is dying, everybody knows it, and nothing is being done.

Do you think the farmers will survive if the river system collapses?

Tell me your solution ?

You know there are some people who simply see a river as a big pipe transporting water from one point to another. Dry or wet.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Tell me your solution ?

You know there are some people who simply see a river as a big pipe transporting water from one point to another. Dry or wet.

My understanding is that there is a project underway to change open irrigation channels to pipes, therefore reducing evaporation losses.
But who gets the extra water , the river, or the farmers?

As I understand it they limited the amount of water being caught by the Thompson Dam to ensure the Thompson river didn't die.
The ludicrous thing is the methodology used.
They decided what the average river flow was and then nominated an amount in litres that had to be let out each year.
I'm pretty sure there was a year there where there was more let out than flowed in.
Then they tell people in melbourne they can only water on odds or even days ( Which makes no sense at all ).

 

[King Elvis]

Tell me your solution ?

You know there are some people who simply see a river as a big pipe transporting water from one point to another. Dry or wet.

Those people are idiots.

Surprisingly, I'm not an expert in this field, so I don't have a solution (that's why we have a Government, isn't it?), but I'll throw out a few questions.

Why don't we ban rice farming in Australia.
Why don't we ban cotton farming in Australia.
Flood irrigation, is it still legal and practiced?
Who controls the flow of the river, and the storage of floodwaters upstream?
Cubby Station and the like, should the Government purchase them?

 

[Doctor Jolly]

Those people are idiots.

Surprisingly, I'm not an expert in this field, so I don't have a solution (that's why we have a Government, isn't it?), but I'll throw out a few questions.

Why don't we ban rice farming in Australia.

Because its a very lucrative export for Australia.

Why don't we ban cotton farming in Australia.

Because its a very lucrative export for Australia.

Flood irrigation, is it still legal and practiced?

Unless the price of water skyrockets, its the most cost effective method.
Are you proposing water super tax ?

Who controls the flow of the river, and the storage of floodwaters upstream?
Cubby Station and the like, should the Government purchase them?

Expensive.

Your views sound very left wing, with government controlling what farmers can and cant do. IMO a farmer gets X megalitres of water, and can grow whatever he wants. Rice, Cotton, Wheat, whatever.

 

[Hawkamania!]

One quick solution would be to allow farmers growing cotton the option of growing hemp. Hemp requires less water to grow and can be produced into more products. Also, hemp requires less herbicides and pesticides than cotton.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Why don't we ban rice farming in Australia.
Why don't we ban cotton farming in Australia.

Elvis, I couldn't agree more.

Back during my ALP days (terminated my membership over 10 years ago), I called for a national inquiry into the spread of both industries in this country, and their impact on our river systems.

I do think that these industries should be, at the very least, restricted in this country.

Sure, they earn export dollars, but that can be said for all other areas of agriculture in this country. I definitely believe that the positives for Australian agriculture as a whole from taking this step far outweigh the negatives.

 

[Doctor Jolly]

One quick solution would be to allow farmers growing cotton the option of growing hemp. Hemp requires less water to grow and can be produced into more products. Also, hemp requires less herbicides and pesticides than cotton.

And it smokes like a bitch!

Yee ha.

 

[King Elvis]

Because its a very lucrative export for Australia.

So is mining. Cotton/Rice wont be when the river is screwed and they can't grow it anymore, and the entire system will go down with that industry.

Because its a very lucrative export for Australia.

So is mining. Selling uranium to Iran would be to.

Unless the price of water skyrockets, its the most cost effective method.
Are you proposing water super tax ?

Since when is the most cost effective method more important than the correct method?

Expensive.

So? It wont be more expensive than the river system collapsing.

The stimulus package was expensive, the BER program is expensive, the insulation program was expensive.

The NBN will be frightfully expensive; and is nowhere near as important to Australia as the viability of those rivers.

Your views sound very left wing, with government controlling what farmers can and cant do. IMO a farmer gets X megalitres of water, and can grow whatever he wants. Rice, Cotton, Wheat, whatever.

I do have some left-ish views, but I don't think that's applicable here. The Government outlaws plenty of things because they aren't in the national interest (otherwise, we'd all be growing opium), this is arguably the most important issue we'll face in the next few decades, and it's being ignored (Howard didn't do anywhere near enough either, for the record).

In the foreseeable future, the Murray/Darling will basically die, and everybody will sit around wondering why we didn't do what we could to fix it when we had the chance; it's dying right now, yet we do nothing.

Above, in red.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I do have some left-ish views, but I don't think that's applicable here. The Government outlaws plenty of things because they aren't in the national interest (otherwise, we'd all be growing opium), this is arguably the most important issue we'll face in the next few decades, and it's being ignored (Howard didn't do anywhere near enough either, for the record).

In the foreseeable future, the Murray/Darling will basically die, and everybody will sit around wondering why we didn't do what we could to fix it when we had the chance; it's dying right now, yet we do nothing.

Above, in red.

Your'e just pissed because you live in Adelaide and have to drink it when everyone else is finished with it.
I know what you're saying re stuffing the river. But removing water along the Vic/Nsw border won't reduce the rainfall or destroy the source, so I'm not sure why you think they will ruin their own supply.

 

[King Elvis]

Your'e just pissed because you live in Adelaide and have to drink it when everyone else is finished with it.
I know what you're saying re stuffing the river. But removing water along the Vic/Nsw border won't reduce the rainfall or destroy the source, so I'm not sure why you think they will ruin their own supply.

Nah, I couldn't give a shit about that, water filters aren't exactly expensive these days.

It might just be me, but I can't quite understand the last sentence. If you're saying what I think though, that's why the Federal Government needs to take control of it, because the States will act in their own interests.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Nah, I couldn't give a shit about that, water filters aren't exactly expensive these days.

It might just be me, but I can't quite understand the last sentence. If you're saying what I think though, that's why the Federal Government needs to take control of it, because the States will act in their own interests.

Sorry I was responding to this:
So is mining. Cotton/Rice wont be when the river is screwed and they can't grow it anymore, and the entire system will go down with that industry.

My thoughts that it was only going to be those downstream that would suffer. ( Its a bit like rivers in parts of Asia, where the villages slowly migrate upstream, because no-one wants to build a new house on the downsteam end - for the obvious reasons ).

 

[medusala]

Your views sound very left wing, with government controlling what farmers can and cant do. IMO a farmer gets X megalitres of water, and can grow whatever he wants. Rice, Cotton, Wheat, whatever.

DJ: the voice of economic rationalism!

 

[Doctor Jolly]

DJ: the voice of economic rationalism!

Meds: the voice of ignorance.

 

[medusala]

Meds: the voice of ignorance.

I agree with your views on this topic (ie water rights) and then you call me ignorant.

Interesting approach.

 

[Doctor Jolly]

I agree with your views on this topic (ie water rights) and then you call me ignorant.

Interesting approach.

I'm sure your only agreeing with me by coincidence.

Next time you do agree with me, please keep it to yourself. I certainly dont want you on my side in these debates. Your too easily pushed off the ball.

 

[Dippers Donuts]

The smiley version of the white flag often used by the global warming cult flies again long after the demise of bp.

I claim that the Arctic Sea Ice is influenced by many factors causing it to grow and shrink, while you claim its all going down due to CO2 influenced global warming which is contrary to the evidence proving the claims of alarmists being wrong. This claim of yours is nothing more than outright fraud.

The proof that the Arctic Sea Ice has not dropped drastically in two decades is here http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/deetest/deetmp.369.png. All you have is data adjusted by people behind the Climategate team.

Any other adjusted data or spin you want to bring to the table via penny wong's office?

No you lying bastard, can you spin your way around this one.
Arctic sea ice is at record low levels, only the totally stupid like yourself could deny otherwise.
Can you spin this one?
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

You are a total fraud.

 

[Hawkamania!]

Donuts, it is very simple. More ice means more ice. Say hi to penny wong for me when you get some more propaganda like the obedient little lap dog you are.

OK donuts, explain this:

Link to http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/deetest/deetmp.369.png for a bigger pic.

 

[Hawkamania!]

Can any of the alarmist congregation defend the use of "thousands of scientists" agreeing on anthropogenic global warming by many from their own side after this comment from?

http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2010/6/11/quote-of-the-day.html

Claims such as ‘2,500 of the world’s leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate’ are disingenuous. That particular consensus judgement, as are many others in the IPCC reports, is reached by only a few dozen experts in the specific field of detection and attribution studies; other IPCC authors are experts in other fields.

Didn't krudd recently state that over 4,000 scientists agreed? This guy who doesn't understand the difference between dozens and thousands is our prime minister.