Climate Change

[Tony Taylor]

One of the protest organizers has just been on an 11,000 mile jet trip holiday.
Protestors in London setup portable kitchens to feed protestors.
Kitchens were powered by portable diesel generators. Nuff said.
Vic

and some of them were paid by the organisation, I saw the interview on tv where one of the organisers admitted it quite openly.

[Red Lead Ted]

Tony I am all for peaceful protests regarding this subject, But if what you are saying is fact then that has to be stopped, How many suffragettes' where lured by money

[Rodney Mills]

Keith:

The only report I could find on the re. the 300 scientist article on the web was a short article in the Daily Mail (Daily Wail) and I don't have much faith in their reporting, based on what little of them I have read, and their sensationalism and political slant in general. So, hold back my thanks for now.

Regards, Rodney

[Keith at Tregenna]

No worries, as said just news headline and not representing any view I may hold myself:

Reuters:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-c...tBWwmv3xVkXYdg

[Rodney Mills]

Johnno:


I found this article re 30k "scientists" plus a rebuttal on the web. Their words not mine. from asking the web about climate change and 30k scientist petition.


31,000 scientists say "no convincing evidence". — OSS ...ossfoundation.us/.../global-warming/myths/31000-scientists-say-no-convincing-evidence


31,000 scientists say "no convincing evidence". 31,000 scientists reject global warming and say "no convincing evidence" that humans can or will cause global warming? But polls show that of scientists working in the field of climate science, and publishing papers on the topic: 97% of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century; and 97% think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures. What is the significance of these statistics?

Scientific Consensus on Global Warming While polls of scientists actively working in the filed of climate science indicate strong general agreement that Earth is warming and human activity is a significant factor, 31,000 scientists say there is "no convincing evidence" that humans can or will cause "catastrophic" heating of the atmosphere.This claim originates from the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, which has an online petition (petitionproject.org) that states:We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals.

The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.To participate in the petition one only needs to mark a check box to show that one has a Ph.D., M.S., or B.S. degree, and then fill in the fields.

Unfortunately, that means that anyone can sign the petition, whether they have a degree or not.

(My comment: it's from a 1977 petition and the general public . In 30 years the understanding of "global warming" has advanced considerable and any layman or laywoman can with a push of a computer button see the loss of land ice in the Arctic or see pictorial evidence of sea rising in "certain regions" and have oceanic tidal flows explained in laypersons language.)


”This second article originally appeared on Fox News.Michael Guillen Ph.D., former Science Editor for ABC News, taught physics at Harvard. His novel, “The Null Prophecy,” debuts July 10."

Using computer simulations, scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, estimate that “a grand solar minimum in the middle of the 21st century would slow down human-caused global warming and reduce the relative increase of surface temperatures by several tenths of a degree (Celsius).”But at the end of the grand minimum, they say, the warming would simply pick up where it left off. “Therefore … a grand solar minimum would slow down and somewhat delay, but not stop, human-caused global warming.

”But the sun’s dramatic quiescence comes with a surprising complication: cosmic rays. They are subatomic particles — mainly protons and helium nuclei — that originate from somewhere deep within our galaxy. Their source is still a mystery.

Using computer simulations, scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, estimate that “a grand solar minimum in the middle of the 21st century would slow down human-caused global warming and reduce the relative increase of surface temperatures by several tenths of a degree (Celsius).”But at the end of the grand minimum, they say, the warming would simply pick up where it left off.

“Therefore … a grand solar minimum would slow down and somewhat delay, but not stop, human-caused global warming.”...But the sun’s dramatic quiescence comes with a surprising complication: cosmic rays. They are subatomic particles — mainly protons and helium nuclei — that originate from somewhere deep within our galaxy. Their source is still a mystery....

Usually, the sun’s powerful magnetic field and radioactive winds keep cosmic rays away from our neighbourhood. But when the sun weakens, the cosmic rays are freer to move in and bombard Earth. New research shows that upon striking the atmosphere, cosmic rays produce showers of particles and ions that seed clouds with extraordinary efficiency. The increased cloudiness shades Earth from the sun.

...Usually, the sun’s powerful magnetic field and radioactive winds keep cosmic rays away from our neighbourhood. But when the sun weakens, the cosmic rays are freer to move in and bombard Earth.

New research shows that upon striking the atmosphere, cosmic rays produce showers of particles and ions that seed clouds with extraordinary efficiency. The increased cloudiness shades Earth from the sun...


Will the sun put the brakes on global warming? - news.com.auhttps://www.news.com.au/technology/science/space/will-the-sun-put-the-brakes-on-global...Jul 17, 2017*· news.com.au — Australia’s #1 news site. ..

Using computer simulations, scientists at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, estimate that “a grand solar minimum in the middle of the 21st century would slow down human-caused global warming and reduce the relative increase of surface temperatures by several tenths of a degree (Celsius).”...But at the end of the grand minimum, they say, the warming would simply pick up where it left off....

But the sun’s dramatic quiescence comes with a surprising complication: cosmic rays. They are subatomic particles — mainly protons and helium nuclei — that originate from somewhere deep within our galaxy. Their source is still a mystery.*
...For most of its history, science believed the sun’s output was constant. It was wrong. Today, we realise that lots of things about the sun wax and wane every eleven years, most notably its brightness and the number of explosive disturbances on its surface called sunspots and faculae.That’s not all. The eleven-year cycle itself snakes up and down like a roller coaster, reaching “grand maxima” and “grand minima” every 100-200 years. The last grand maximum peaked circa 1958, after which the sun has been steadily quieting down. Today, the drop in activity is at its steepest in 9,300 years.

“Therefore a grand solar minimum would slow down and somewhat delay, but not stop, human-caused global warming.”...


I repeat; their words not mine, as written, no cut and paste.

Cheers, Rodney.

[happy daze john in oz]

Rodders thanks for that, but as we all know there are so many different levels to all of this, so many different points of view it is hard to determine who is correct, then there is the media, enough said.

Of late I have had to do a bit more driving than usual, listen to the radio when out as many of our roads go on for ever, or so it appears.
Talk back radio is good as there will always be the good story, the stupid and the odd argument.

On the long road back from Bendigo today I listened in to a scientist who made a very interesting point.
He commented on the story we often hear that some 30,000 scientists agree on this or that, it is not so simple./
ASs he stated you cannot get that number together at one time.

They do however have an organization which he compared to a union.
At the head a group of senior scientists who gather information from around the globe, they analyse and make a recommendation based on what they receive.
Once a situation is agreed on the report goes to all in the 'union' as he called it.
He agrees that within such a number there will be some who may not agree with the findings and that is normal with any group.
The report is then put out on behalf of the 30,000.
It may be noted that of that number at least half are employed by various government agencies.

There has been a call here by the 'Greens' for al air travel to have a levy placed on it to discourage people from flying!!!
One small problem there, most of the 'Greens' in federal parliament use air travel to get to parliament from their p[lace of residence.
Do as I say, not as I do comes to mind.

One federal Labor MP has put a motion to parliament to declare a 'Climate Emergency' the Greens have come out in favor of this.
A number of local councils have done the same.
One bit missing, whilst they have declared the emergency none of them have put forward any notions on what next?
Apart from the Greens who want all coal mines and iron ore mines closed today.
That will not happen, both sides of parliament agree on that.
Much of this is grandstanding by a few.

[Keith at Tregenna]

Johnno:

“Therefore a grand solar minimum would slow down and somewhat delay, but not stop, human-caused global warming.”...

Cheers, Rodney.

I tend to read all and decide all from evidence.

As ever your post, makes most sense.

K.

- - - Updated - - -

Johnno:

“Therefore a grand solar minimum would slow down and somewhat delay, but not stop, human-caused global warming.”...

Cheers, Rodney.

I tend to read all and decide all from evidence.

As ever your post, makes most sense.

K.

[Des Taff Jenkins]

One strange thing Rod, no one believes in climate change, but this is the longest post for awhile.!!
Des

[Keith at Tregenna]

Will look at all again ASAP Des

and see whom has posted most


RE: in this longest post on what


does not exist.


K.

[happy daze john in oz]

A long thread Des as it is one of interest to some.

As previously stated there ate two groups, those who blindly accept what is told to them, mainly through the media.
Then those who are prepared to look outside the square and seek alternative solutions and evidence.
Then there is a third group, those who just do not comprehend what is being stated so pass remarks to the effect that they find the posting beyond their comprehension.