Give us your water kents.

I still think we need some kind of comparative data from the Industrial revolution.

I think fact, hard to ignore the mountain of evidence, but whether it's anthropogenic or otherwise is a different (probably irrelevant) matter

Why?

The level of pollution and climate change from the Industrial Revolution would have been significant. If we had pollution and climate change statistics from that time period we'd be able to see how much of this is anthropogenic and how much of it the planet will naturally recover from.

It seems these days that any time the weather is hotter than average, that's due to global warming.
Any time the weather is colder than average, that's due to global warming... erm... umm... let's call it climate change instead.
Any time it rains more than average, that's due to climate change.
Any time it rains less than average, that's due to climate change.

I long for the good old days, when there was never, ever, any variance from the average temperature and rainfall figures.


Don't take this to mean I disagree with the statement that people pumping less sh*t into the atmosphere would be a good thing.

On the words of Wil Anderson; "Global warming: Grrrr. Climate Change: aahhhhh."

It's completely fiction, also God exists and my vote counts

Edited by marconi101: 31/1/2013 10:05:02 PM

I liken the argument people use to say global warming doesn't exist because it rained that day to someone on the bow of the Titanic refusing to accept that they're sinking because they've been raised one hundred meters in the air.

Global warming is a myth. You know how i know? It is cold.....where I live......today.

Ding, ding, ding....we have a winner
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Fact. The Earth warms and cools periodically due to landmass positioning, orbit, life induced atmosphere changes, non-life induced atmosphere changes, etc.

You forgot to add 'And I Vote'
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Fact. There have been a record number of droughts and record number of floods in recent years.

Fact. Bushfire's have become more frequent in recent years

Fact. Arctic ice hit record low

Fact. If you were born after 1980, you have never experienced a below average month in temperature on a global scale.

Fact. July 2012 was the hottest month ever recorded on a global scale.

Fact. 99.83% of Scientist agree climate change is real

With regard to sea levels;

Fact. There are three main islands off the coast of WA near Perth: Rottnest, Carnac & Garden Islands.

Fact. They were connected to the mainland until sea levels rose about 7,000 years ago.

Fact. Since this occurred 7,000 years ago, it definitely wasn't due to any human influence.

Fact. This sea level rise was obviously of several meters.

Conclusion. Panicking about a ~20cm rise in the last ~130 years seems pointless when there have been more dramatic changes in the past that obviously weren't caused by humans.



Repeat previous statement: That's not to say that I think reducing pollution would be a bad thing.

Global warming is a scam.

[youtube]u_0JZRIHFtk[/youtube]

I wasn't disputing that the earth was getting hotter just the reasons for it.

No-one can argue that climate change isn't real. The climate is in a constant state of change. Land is eroded, Mountains are formed, plants/animals die from disease, fire, heat, cold and overpopulation.

Are you saying there is more fires world wide or just in Australia? In Australia we mismanage the bush. The aboriginals shaped the land with fire. For it to be healthy we should be burning around 10% of it each year.

Furthermore, what's the point in western society panicking about global warming and reducing pollution when anything we do is offset by China's frankly disgusting output.

China are currently trialling a carbon pricing structured nearly identical to Australias in a few provinces.

I don't think that will achieve anything except to drive up the cost of living in China and create an even more aristocratic society.

Much of eastern china's economy is built off their massive coal consumption. Consider that eastern china uses 50% of the world's coal consumption.

Also, if you look at total greenhouse emissions Per Capita - Australia beats out everyone except for 3 tiny Arab petrostates and the eternal outlier Luxembourg.

By comparison, USA is 11th in the world, China is 72nd, India is 111th

I don't think anyone in China cares what you think will happen. They have some pretty qualified people on it.

I have no doubt that they have similar disregard for your opinion. However this is a forum, the core concept of which is for people to express their opinions on whatever the topic at hand is. Which is exactly what I did. And if you've got a problem with that then the 'logout' button is on the top right hand corner of your page. Have a nice day.

-PB

It's my opinion that your opinion on the matter has been demonstrated to be factually invalid.

Deal with it.

The only fact I presented on the matter was that China consumes 50% of the world's coal. This fact is not invalid. And your attempt to deride my opinion has subsequently failed.

You do realise, you're accepting anthropogenic global warming by that statement

It's an unfortunate catalyst, but acceptable in the greater scheme of things, that China's air pollution from coal burning and vehicle emissions will lead to even more green energy development

Putting words in my mouth champ. Notorganic would be proud.

Actually, to clarify, the figure represents the percentage of ALL peer reviewed scientific papers since circa 1990 that support anthropogenic global warming. IIRC the amount of papers is in the thousands (possibly tens of thousands)

At the end of day, labeling anthropogenic global warming as fiction is just that you are poorly educated when it comes to science, particularly what the scientific method is and what peer review is.

Educated opinion isn't so much as to whether anthropogenic global warming exists as it is to the significance of its contribution to the fluctuation in the climate.

Peer reviewed climate science answers the question as to how much anthropogenic CO2 contributes to climate change, as opposed to natural variability.
Blogs (eg: What's Up With That, Joanne Nova, Andrew Bolt, etc) do not answer this question.

Using a moron like Andrew Bolt as the poster boy of the naysayers isn't really the way to go :lol:

My problem with 'scientific' opinion on the matter is that in science, you start with a theory and then try and observe and replicate the result. Global Warming "scientists" have the result and try and shoe-horn the theory to fit.

There isn't enough detail or data to make concrete assertions as to the extent of anthropogenic global warming. Especially when we know for a fact that the earth's climate naturally heats and cools. We also know that there was a significant increase in global temperatures following the Industrial Revolution, but we don't know the extent thereof nor the subsequent impacts - ie. was there a return to previous temperatures, or how far off previous temperatures was it and over what duration?

I'm not saying that there shouldn't be any action because of this. I mean, the pollution coming out of China is TEN TIMES that of 'safe' levels (which is still disturbingly high). Something obviously needs to be done about that. But using something as intangible and mercurial as "Global Warming" to spark action from countries who are too busy trying to steal from and kill each other than work together on a pan-global scale, rather than the basic humanitarian appeal that you're literally suffocating your own people in the name of "progress" doesn't work for me.

Tell people that you're causing global warming and the right-wing douchebags go "prove it, natural climate fluctuation, etc." Tell them that they're suffocating their own people in the name of 'progress', that's a little bit harder to just brush off.

Just saw on youtube Rita Panahi on Sunrise expressing her views on climate change.
It goes to show how fucking dumb people are. "...where are the women on the climate commission..." :oops: :oops: :oops:
This is the woman who trolled football fans over the seats getting ripped up at the Melb derby.

When it comes to anthropogenic global warming it reminds of this psychological bias
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which unskilled individuals suffer from illusory superiority, mistakenly rating their ability much higher than average. This bias is attributed to a metacognitive inability of the unskilled to recognize their mistakes.

if anyone is interested in a good read on the whole nature,earth,food,pollution thingy.....Prince charles "harmony" is a good read........

[youtube]hC3VTgIPoGU[/youtube]

Climate change 'will make hundreds of millions homeless'

Carbon dioxide levels indicate rise in temperatures that could lead agriculture to fail on entire continents

Robin McKie, science editor
The Observer, Sunday 12 May 2013

It is increasingly likely that hundreds of millions of people will be displaced from their homelands in the near future as a result of global warming. That is the stark warning of economist and climate change expert Lord Stern following the news last week that concentrations of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere had reached a level of 400 parts per million (ppm).

Massive movements of people are likely to occur over the rest of the century because global temperatures are likely to rise to by up to 5C because carbon dioxide levels have risen unabated for 50 years, said Stern, who is head of the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change.

"When temperatures rise to that level, we will have disrupted weather patterns and spreading deserts," he said. "Hundreds of millions of people will be forced to leave their homelands because their crops and animals will have died. The trouble will come when they try to migrate into new lands, however. That will bring them into armed conflict with people already living there. Nor will it be an occasional occurrence. It could become a permanent feature of life on Earth."

The news that atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have reached 400ppm has been seized on by experts because that level brings the world close to the point where it becomes inevitable that it will experience a catastrophic rise in temperatures. Scientists have warned for decades of the danger of allowing industrial outputs of carbon dioxide to rise unchecked.

Instead, these outputs have accelerated. In the 1960s, carbon dioxide levels rose at a rate of 0.7ppm a year. Today, they rise at 2.1ppm, as more nations become industrialised and increase outputs from their factories and power plants. The last time the Earth's atmosphere had 400ppm carbon dioxide, the Arctic was ice-free and sea levels were 40 metres higher.

The prospect of Earth returning to these climatic conditions is causing major alarm. As temperatures rise, deserts will spread and life-sustaining weather patterns such as the North Indian monsoon could be disrupted. Agriculture could fail on a continent-wide basis and hundreds of millions of people would be rendered homeless, triggering widespread conflict.

There are likely to be severe physical consequences for the planet. Rising temperatures will shrink polar ice caps – the Arctic's is now at its lowest since records began – and so reduce the amount of solar heat they reflect back into space. Similarly, thawing of the permafrost lands of Alaska, Canada and Russia could release even more greenhouse gases, including methane, and further intensify global warming.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/may/12/climate-change-expert-stern-displacement?

Not for the scientifically illiterate

Not looking forward to the distant future (I'd hate to be my kids or grand kids).

Well if it is real, surely we're fucked by now so let's just burn the rest of it and enjoy ourselves. Get it over and done with.

I don't think it's going to be as distant as you think.

Fantastic channel for anyone who's interested

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54

If more people (mainly hot chicks) wear less clothes because the world is getting warmer, im all for that!

Not much climate change doubt, science says

May 15, 2013

Having doubts over climate change and the role of humans? You're unlikely to find many scientists who share your uncertainty.

That is the finding of a University of Queensland-led study that surveyed the abstracts of almost 12,000 scientific papers from 1991-2011 and claims to be the largest peer-reviewed study of its kind.

Of those who a stated a position on the evidence for global warming, 97.1 per cent endorsed the view that humans are to blame. Just 1.9 per cent rejected the view.

The report's lead author, John Cook, a fellow at the University of Queensland's Global Change Institute and founder of the website skepticalscience.com, said the scientific consensus was overwhelming, growing and had been around since the early 1990s.

He said that while the number of papers rejecting the consensus was "vanishingly small", his research suggested the public was under the impression the debate was split 50-50.

"When people think scientists agree, they are more likely to support a carbon tax or general climate action," he said.

"But if they think scientists are still arguing about it, they don't want to do anything about it." Carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are about 400 parts per million and rising – the highest in more than 3 million years.

The fifth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is due to update its findings on research into global warming and the potential impact on societies and the environment from this September.

Mr Cook said scientists now found less need to state their position on climate change in abstracts summarising their papers, "just as geographers find no reason to remind readers that the earth is round".

The survey is published in the journal Environmental Research Letters. It is based on the work of 24 scientists and others recruited through skepticalscience.com. Ratings were cross-checked and authors were contacted to rate their own papers.

Mr Cook said the level of endorsement – 97.2 per cent of the one-fifth who replied – was in line with the overall findings.

The strength of the scientific consensus could be likened to the theory of plate tectonics, or continental drift, that took 50 years to gain acceptance. In that case, he said the media found little reason to stoke controversy because there was "no political or ideological issue with plate tectonics", he said.

Broad study

"If people disagree with what we've found we want to know," said Mark Richardson of the University of Reading in England, one of the authors of the study that looked at English-language studies by authors in more than 90 nations.

Another co-author, Dana Nuccitelli of Skeptical Science, said he was encouraging scientists to stress the consensus "at every opportunity, particularly in media interviews".

Opinion polls in some countries show widespread belief that scientists disagree about whether climate change is caused by human activities or is part of natural swings such as in the sun's output.

A survey by the US Pew Research Center published in October last year found 45 per cent of Americans said "Yes" when asked: "Do scientists agree Earth is getting warmer because of human activity?" About 43 per cent said "No".

Governments have agreed to work out, by the end of 2015, a deal to slow climate change that a UN panel of experts says will cause more floods, droughts and rising sea levels.

With Reuters

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/not-much-climate-change-doubt-science-says-20130515-2jmup.html#ixzz2TSACVIms

It's a reflection on the poor teaching of what science is in secondary school.

That is a very poor question to ask people. Just because someone is a scientist doesn't mean that they have the data, experience or are even properly qualified to give an opinion in the "expert" manner that they are suggesting.
The correct answer should be "No", those 1.9% of papers in the UOQ study prove that. Scientists don't totally agree.

A better question would be:
Is the general consensus in the scientific community that Earth is getting warmer because of human activity?

DOOM, DOOM, I tells ya!!!!

Stereotypical mindset of a right wing voter. Simplistic. Hence why they are branded 'conservative'

I'm agreeing with you. It's all doom.

World suffered unprecedented climate extremes in past decade-WMO

Source: Reuters - Wed, 3 Jul 2013 11:25 AM
Author: Reuters



* Every year of decade except 2008 was among 10 warmest on record

* Extremes worsening, greenhouse gas emissions rising - WMO

By Environment Correspondent Alister Doyle

July 3 (Reuters) - The world suffered unprecedented climate extremes in the decade to 2010, from heatwaves in Europe and droughts in Australia to floods in Pakistan, against a backdrop of global warming, a United Nations report said on Wednesday.

Every year of the decade except 2008 was among the 10 warmest since records began in the 1850s, with 2010 the hottest, according to the study by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The number of daily heat records far outstripped lows.

It said many extremes could be explained by natural variations - freak storms and droughts have happened throughout history - but that rising emissions of man-made greenhouse gases also played a role.

"Rising concentrations of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are changing our climate, with far-reaching implications for our environment and our oceans, which are absorbing both carbon dioxide and heat," WMO Secretary-General Michel Jarraud said in a statement.

The study said damaging extremes included Hurricane Katrina in the United States in 2005, Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar in 2008, floods in Pakistan in 2010, droughts in the Amazon basin, Australia and East Africa and a retreat of Arctic sea ice.

Deaths from extreme events totalled 370,000 people, up 20 percent from the 1990s, the Geneva-based WMO said, though the world population also rose sharply over the period, from 5.3 billion in 1990 to 6.9 billion in 2010.

The jump in the death toll was caused mainly by a heatwave in Europe in 2003 which killed 66,000 and a heatwave in Russia in 2010 in which 55,000 people died.

However, casualties from storms and droughts fell, partly because of better preparedness for disasters.

The study said that 44 percent of nations recorded the highest daily maximum temperature of the past half-century in the decade 2001-10 but only 11 percent reported a new low.

It also said that the decade "continued an extended period of accelerating global warming" with average decadal temperatures 0.21 degree Celsius (0.4 F) warmer than 1991-2000, which was in turn 0.14 C warmer than 1981-1990.

SLOWING RATE OF INCREASE?

Other reports have found that the rate of temperature rises has slowed this century.

"Global mean surface temperatures have not increased strongly since 1998" despite rising greenhouse gas emissions, according to a draft report by the U.N.'s panel of climate scientists due for release in September.

Some experts say the apparent rise from the 1990s is magnified because a volcanic eruption in the Philippines in 1991 dimmed sunlight and cut temperatures.

The WMO also said it was hard to link any individual extreme events to climate change rather than to natural variability.

However, warmer air can hold more moisture, raising risks of downpours - the study said that 2010 was the wettest year since records began. And sea levels have risen about 20 centimetres in the past century, increasing risks of storm surges.

One 2004 study, for instance, said that climate change had at least doubled the risks of the European heatwave in 2003.

Peter Stott of the UK Met Office who led that study said scientists were now trying to see if there was a human fingerprint behind other extremes in 2012, such as Superstorm Sandy or drought in Australia.

"You can't just take a record-breaking event and say 'that's climate change'," he said. (Editing by Gareth Jones)

http://www.trust.org/item/20130703112539-htj28/?source=search

This is serious. Let's raise more taxes.

When medical scientists say there's an aids problem in Africa, no one says "bullshit".
When astronomers discover a new planet, no one says "bullshit".
When biologists discover a new animal species, no one says "bullshit".
When physicists find out more information about atoms, no one says "bullshit".
When doctors diagnose someone with cancer, no one says "bullshit".

But when climate scientists say we've got a pollution problem, people seem to think they can call it bullshit despite having 0 qualifications in that area of science.

I'm sure you're right. But can we move this into the "Fads" thread?

Climate change denial? I guess so.

Denial is a river....

And the people near there are revolting.

I always thought that. Dirty Egyptians. Maybe they should wash in the river.

That's a good question - if Egyptians washed in denial, would they still be revolting?

Edited by thupercoach: 5/7/2013 10:27:40 PM

You wanna go Bath in [size=1]de[/size]Nile. Be my guest. Happy to say you've got bigger balls than me.

Edited by Heineken: 6/7/2013 04:35:39 AM

Those balls wouldn't last long.

My beanbag has bigger balls than you buddy.

Even if you don't believe in climate change, surely the wiping out of beautiful rainforests and animal species is enough reason to significantly change our ways?

Australia warned to prepare for hotter summers – report

Last updated on 8 July 2013, 7:55 am
By Tim Radford

Global warming has increased five-fold the probabilities that Australians will bake in record hot summers, according to new research from the University of Melbourne.

And human activities – including greenhouse gas releases from fossil fuels – must account for at least half of these extreme summer temperatures of the future, the scientists say.

Sophie Lewis and David Karoly report in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union, that they used climate observations and more than 90 climate model simulations to deliver their verdict, and to highlight the unexpected nature of the events of the first months of 2013, the hottest in the country’s observational record.

Australians are used to summer heat, drought and periodic bush fires as part of the continent’s natural cycle, and these are often linked to a Pacific Ocean temperature phenomenon known as El Niño, dubbed “the Child” in Peru because it tends to occur around Christmas time.


Australia’s Climate Commission warns that wine producing regions could be put out of business if temperatures continue to soar


But there was no El Niño: if anything, the ocean heat was turned down a little in a counter phenomenon called La Niña. So the extreme heat, catastrophic flooding and devastating bushfires early this year – the southern hemisphere summer – were certainly not expected.

“This extreme summer is not only remarkable for its record-breaking nature but also because it occurred at a time of a weak La Niña to neutral conditions, which generally produce cooler summers”, said David Karoly. “Importantly our research shows the natural variability of El Niño-Southern Oscillation is unlikely to explain the recent record temperatures.”

Sophie Lewis, who is also at the Australian Research Council’s Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science, warned that such extreme summers will become even more frequent and more severe in the future, as the planet warms further.

Adaptation

Between December 2012 and February 2013, Australians experienced the hottest month in the nation’s recorded history, and the hottest day. There were fierce and destructive bush fires in Tasmania and Victoria, and severe flooding in New South Wales and Queensland. The Australian media dubbed it “the angry summer”.

“We cannot categorically ascribe the cause of a particular climate event to anthropogenic climate change; however, the roles of various factors contributing to the change in odds of an event occurring can be identified”, the two scientists write.

They examined the historical record of more than 150 years of observation, and found, repeatedly, that extreme summers tended to occur in step with El Niño years: in fact were three times more likely to happen in an El Niño year than a La Niña season.

Clearly, something else was at work in the summer of 2013. Natural climatic variations were not likely to have caused the bush fires and the floods.

It was possible to say, with more than 90% confidence, that human influences on the Australian atmosphere had dramatically increased the odds of extreme temperatures.

By the end of the century, other studies have shown, 65% of all summers are likely to be “extremely hot”.

There was also research that suggested longer summers – that is, shorter springs and autumns – might be expected as carbon dioxide levels continued to rise. In those parts of Australia that were both heavily populated, and at risk of bush fire, humans would have to adapt.

This article was produced by the Climate News Network.

AUSTRALIAN CLIMATE COMMISSION FACTS:

- Heat: The number of record hot days in Australia has doubled since the 1960s. The summer of 2012/2013 summer set over 100 heat records, including the hottest summer, hottest month, and hottest day on record.

- Bushfire weather: Extreme fire weather has increased in many parts of Australia, including southern NSW, Victoria, Tasmania and parts of South Australia, over the last 30 years.

- Rainfall: Heavy rainfall has increased globally. Over the last three years Australia’s east coast has experienced several very heavy rainfall events, fuelled by record-high surface water temperatures in the adjacent seas.

- Drought: A long-term drying trend is affecting the southwest corner of Western Australia, which has experienced a 15% drop in rainfall since the mid-1970s.

- Sea-level rise: Sea level has already risen 20cm globally. This means that storm surges ride on sea levels that are higher than they were a century ago, increasing the risk of flooding along Australia’s socially, economically and environmentally important coastlines. For instance, since 1950 Fremantle has experienced a three-fold increase in inundation events.

- See more at: http://www.rtcc.org/australia-warned-to-prepare-for-hotter-summers-report/?#sthash.jUKbCngZ.dpuf

Feeling pretty cold atm. And the dams are full. And China just had its coldest winter in decades. And the Earth has cooled in the past 20 years.

But I'm sure Tim Flannery is right.

America is sweltering through it's hottest summer of all time. But yeah, global averages mean we should ignore this.

Not at all. I think we should pour billions into carbon credits and taxes. That'll fix it for sure.

I've seen you say that the Earth has cooled in the past 20 years. I'm interested to see references to that statement.

According to NASA the previous decade was the warmest on record
http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators

There are some republicans who would like to sign you up to their party champ.

Why is it that righties are, on average, inept when it comes to science?
Rhetorical question........

Edited by ozboy: 9/7/2013 06:45:59 PM

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/hansens_anniversary_testimony

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/05/26/to-the-horror-of-global-warming-alarmists-global-cooling-is-here/

http://iceagenow.info/2011/11/russian-scientists-predict-100-years-cooling/

http://www.warwickhughes.com/papers/idso98.htm

I'm more convinced than ever. But the UN gravy train thinks otherwise.

Forbes? FORBES? :lol: :lol: :lol:
Shouldn't Forbes stick to justifying derivatives and the sub-prime mortgage system?

As for the rest, I bet they are blogs. Do they have a theory behind Nasa's faked moon landings and the real killer of JFK? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Wow, you make some compelling arguments.

Well, the warmest years on record, according to NASA, are 2010, 2005, 2007, 1998, 2002, 2009, 2006, 2003, 2012, 2011, 2004, 2008, 2001.


http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains2-4.html


AR5's first report/chapter is due at the end of this year with the full report a year later.

Attn Thupercoach: a blog is not now, nor will it ever be, a reliable source of information.

Believe whatever you like mate. When an article quotes accurate sources that's good enough for me. Perhaps not for you. I'm OK with people who want to believe in stuff like man-made global warming. Heck, some even do believe in the faked moon landing theory.

Comparing something with scientific evidence to the faked moon landing only serves to reiterate how delusional you are.

A blog is an editorial piece. An article written with the intent of first having a conclusion and then bringing your ideas around to suit it with emotive language and selective use of evidence. It is NOT a valid source to prove anything except your own gullibility.

When a blog uses actual facts and statistics to prove its editorial position then it becomes a compelling, fact-based argument in my book.

As I said, believe what you like. I am here to converse rather than convert.

When it's a blog piece it can select the facts as it wants to. It's not reporting actual scientific findings. It starts with a conclusion and then builds a contention, not the other way around.

Great Barrier Reef's condition declined from moderate to poor in 2011

Series of reports blames extreme weather conditions and high rainfall for reef's poor health

Oliver Laughland
guardian.co.uk, Wednesday 10 July 2013 18.02 AEST

An alarming set of reports on the condition of the Great Barrier Reef published on Wednesday say its overall condition in 2011 declined from moderate to poor, and highlights that reef-wide coral cover has declined by 50% since 1985.

The series of reports blame part of the reef's poor health in 2011 on extreme weather conditions including tropical cyclone Yasi, and high rainfall which resulted in "higher than average discharge" from a number of river catchments runoffs.

The Great Barrier Reef report card of 2011 said: "These extreme weather events significantly impacted the overall condition of the marine environment which declined from moderate to poor overall in 2010–2011."

The report card also examines the water quality of the region, and showed that the majority of land managers within the Great Barrier Reef region had failed to reach their reef plan targets, aimed at reducing sediment and pesticide loads which are harmful to water quality.

"Thirty four per cent of sugarcane growers, 17% of graziers and 25% of horticulture producers adopted improved management practices by June 2011," the report said.

These reef plan targets are described as "ambitious" and include targets to halve nutrient and pesticide loads by 2013 and to reduce sediment by 20% by 2020. Despite this, the report observes "major positive change" in land management within the region.

The 2013 scientific consensus statement, released at the same time as the report card, concluded that coral cover of inshore reefs had declined by 34% since 2005.

The new environment minister Mark Butler said: "In spite of solid improvement, data tells us that poor water quality is continuing to have a detrimental effect on reef health.

"To secure the resilience of the Great Barrier Reef it is critical that we build on the momentum of the previous reef plan with a focus on improving water quality and land management practices through ambitious but achievable targets."

The federal and Queensland state environment ministers announced that they would invest a total of $375 million between 2013 and 2018 under a new Reef Water Quality Protection Plan, designed "to guide initiatives to ensure that runoff from agriculture has no detrimental impact on the health and resilience of the Great Barrier Reef".

The Queensland minister for environment, Andrew Powell, praised those landholders in the region who were improving their practise. "We are working closely with industry, landholders, natural resource management bodies and community groups to accelerate the uptake of practices that maximise reef water quality while maintaining and enhancing profitability and environmental performance," he said.

But Greenpeace spokeswoman Georgina Woods was critical of the bi-annual meeting between the two ministers. She said neither minister had engaged with the key issue of coal export and mining within the region, particularly at a controversial new dredging proposal at the Abbot Point coal terminal.

"One day after the new environment and climate change minister deferred a crucial decision on the future of Abbot Point, the Great Barrier Reef Ministerial Forum has failed to tackle the problems that every Australian knows are eating away at the Great Barrier Reef: global warming and ocean acidification. Hopefully, today's missed opportunity is just a dress rehearsal for the main event in August, when the new minister will be called upon to choose between safeguarding the Great Barrier Reef and letting the coal industry dredge, dump and develop Abbot Point.

"It is pretty clear that the Queensland government is not going to stand up to the coal industry and protect the reef in the interests of the broader community and future generations. Mark Butler now has 30 days to make a decision about Abbot Point. To safeguard the Reef and fulfill his climate change brief, he has no choice: he must say 'no' to the coal industry," Woods added.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/10/great-barrier-reef-report-card?

CLIMATE CHANGE
Why Is Google Raising Cash for the Nation's Biggest Climate Change Denier?

By Brian Merchant



GIF by Daniel Stuckey

James Inhofe is Oklahoma's senior senator. He's also perhaps the most prominent foe of climate change science currently serving in the US government. There are myriad congressmen who dispute the scientific consensus that the globe is warming—and who routinely vote against any action that would address it. But Inhofe is in a league of his own. So why is Google, a major investor in clean energy and purported doer of no evil, throwing this man a fundraiser?

The tech giant is hosting a $250-2,500 per plate lunch for the senator on Thursday, July 19th, and climate activists are crying foul. This is politics in action.

Google has data centers in Oklahoma, so the company has business interests in the state. But the climate advocacy group Forecast the Facts (FTF) quickly started a petition exhorting Google to "Cancel your July 11 fundraiser for Sen. Jim Inhofe and pledge to never fund climate deniers again."

As of this writing, it had obtained nearly 6,000 e-signatures. At 10,000, it will be delivered to Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt. FTF notes in the petition that Schmidt has previously taken on climate change deniers—those who circulate anti-scientific ideas and mistruths about global warming—and pointed to Google, and the internet in general, as a way to combat misinformation about global warming.

In a short speech at the "How Green is the Internet?" summit, Schmidt said that the primary reason action on climate change has proved elusive is "the fact problem." People don't have enough access to real facts about climate science, he argued, but the internet will eventually deliver that access, and expose those spreading falsehoods in the process.

"The media gets confused because they don't believe in facts, and public policy people get confused because they don't believe in innovation," he said in the same speech, according to the Verge. "You can hold back knowledge, you cannot prevent it from spreading. You can lie about the effects of climate change, but eventually you'll be seen as a liar."

Inhofe is precisely the kind of man he's talking about. The senator not only doubts that temperatures are rising, but believes the notion to be the product of an intricate conspiracy that stretches from grant-hungry scientists to (surprise) Al Gore to shadowy luminati-type characters he imagines pulling the strings at the UN. This is not an exaggeration, and Inhofe wouldn't flinch from such a portraiture—he'd proudly embrace it. His ideas are all laid bare in his 2012 book The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future.



Inhofe talks to Oklahoma Horizon TV about climate change.

Requests for comment from Inhofe's DC office were not immediately returned, but a spokesperson for Google said the focus was Google's Oklahoma interests, not the climate.

"We regularly host fundraisers for candidates, on both sides of the aisle, but that doesn't mean we endorse all of their positions," wrote the spokesperson. "And while we disagree on climate change policy, we share an interest with Senator Inhofe in the employees and data center we have in Oklahoma."

Google is currently in the process of expanding its data center in that state. According to a 2012 Data Center Knowledge report, the search giant has invested $700 million to double server capacity at the Oklahoma facility, and added 50 jobs in the process. It also gets some of its power from a nearby wind farm.

But Brad Johnson, the campaign manager for Forecast the Facts, says fundraising for Inhofe is inexcusable.

"With its support of the likes of Inhofe and CEI, Google is funding climate denial," he wrote me in an email. "Why Google is betraying its claimed ethical standards and the interests of its customers and shareholders by funding anti-science conspiracy theorists is unclear."

The CEI is the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a renowned conservative think tank that pushes for lower taxes and "free market" reforms. It also routinely propagates doubt about climate change science, despite lacking the scientific authority to do so. Johnson notes that the Washington Post recently revealed "that Google was the biggest single donor to the Competitive Enterprise Institute’s annual dinner on Thursday, June 20, dropping $50,000 in support of this anti-science group."

As Google's already mammoth ambitions continue to expand, and the company gets more heavily involved in politics, such contradictions will likely continue to arise. It has invested millions in wind power and offshore grid projects, and promptly responded to criticisms that it drew too much dirty power from its data centers by buying more renewable energy. A lot more. But Inhofe is one of the biggest impediments to meaningful climate policy in Congress—he played a central role in killing legislation that would reduce carbon pollution.

As such, this fundraiser is illustrative: Google's executives can sincerely believe that their products will eventually help to end the climate problem, by eroding the credibility of climate liars. But by fundraising for Inhofe, they are are simultaneously helping to validate and sustain his anti-science platform. Doing no evil continues to be a thorny business.



Read more: http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/why-is-google-raising-cash-for-the-nations-biggest-climate-change-denier-1#ixzz2YdSNM2pD
Follow us: @motherboard on Twitter | motherboardtv on Facebook

Air pollution boosts lung, heart risks

Long-term exposure to particulate air pollution boosts the risk of lung cancer, even at concentrations below the legal maximum, according to a European study.

A separate report says short-term surge in these particles or other gas pollutants in the air also increases the risk of heart failure.

European epidemiologists say they had found an unmistakeable link between lung cancer and localised air pollution by particulate matter.

The evidence comes from 17 high-quality investigations carried out among 312,000 people in nine European countries, according to the paper in The Lancet Oncology.

These earlier studies, which had already been published, were based on reliable records of the health and lifestyle of 2095 people who died from lung cancer during an average 13-year monitoring period.

The team sourced environmental data around the individuals' home addresses, then calculated their exposure to levels of particulate matter -- the gritty residual pollution from fossil-fuel-burning power stations, cars and factories.

Particulate matter falls into two categories: PM2.5, meaning particles measuring no more than 2.5 micrometres, 30 times smaller than a human hair, and the slightly coarser variant, PM10.

Current EU air quality standards limit PM10 exposure to a yearly average of 40 micrograms per cubic metre, and PM2.5 exposure to 25 micrograms per cubic metre per year.

The UN's World Health Organisation (WHO) has guidelines recommending that annual exposure be limited to 20 micrograms per cubic metre for PM10 and 10 micrograms per cubic metre for PM2.5

Unexpectedly, the new study found a cancer risk at every level, and confirmed that the higher the level, the greater the risk.


'No threshold'
The results took account of smoking, diet and occupation -- which can skew the risk picture.

"We found no threshold below which there was no risk," says Ole Raaschou-Nielsen from the Danish Cancer Society Research Centre in Copenhagen.

"The more the worse, the less the better."

Every increase of five micrograms per cubic metre of PM2.5 drove the risk of lung cancer up by 18 per cent.

And every increase of 10 micrograms per cubic metre of PM10 boosted risk by 22 per cent, including for adenocarcinoma, a type of lung cancer associated with non-smokers.

In an independent comment, Jon Ayres, a professor of environmental and respiratory medicine at the Institute of Occupational and Environmental Medicine in Birmingham, England, praised the design and scope of the study.

"There is now no doubt that fine particles are a cause of lung cancer," he says.

Smog alert
In a separate study in The Lancet, scientists at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland carried out a meta-analysis of 35 studies in 12 countries.

It looked at PM2.5, PM10 and four air pollutants: carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, nitrogen dioxide and ozone.

They found that even a brief spike in exposure -- the kind that happens when a city calls a smog alert -- caused the risk of hospitalisation or death from heart failure to rise by two or three percentage points. The only exception was ozone, a well-known respiratory irritant at the ground level.

Modelling the situation for the United States, the study suggests that if the average PM2.5 were reduced by 3.9 micrograms per cubic metre, nearly 8000 heart-failure hospitalisations would be averted each year and the country would save a third of a billion dollars annually.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/07/10/3800159.htm

The concern in Australia is the massive increase in diesel cars.
The World Health Organisation has already shown that diesel causes cancer.

In addition to anthropogenic climate change, its another detrimental side effect of current vehicle fuels.

Bit of a catch 22 there. Diesel is more environmentally friendly and sustainable than petroleum but far more carcinogenic.

In 10 years time half of China are going to go full Futurama sewer mutant.

Edited by afromanGT: 11/7/2013 12:27:58 PM

Air pollution 'kills more than 2 million people every year'

Climate change only partly to blame, say scientists, as sooty particles and ozone account for most deaths

guardian.co.uk, Friday 12 July 2013 20.14 AEST

More than 2 million deaths occur globally each year as a direct result of air pollution from human activity, a team of international scientists has said.

But climate change has only made a small contribution to the lethal effects, according to the study published on Friday in the journal Environmental Research Letters.

It suggests that 2.1 million people die after inhaling fine sooty particles called PM2.5s generated by diesel engines, power plants and coal fires.

Another 470,000 are thought to be killed by high levels of ozone, created when vehicle exhaust gases react with oxygen.

Dr Jason West from the University of North Carolina said: "Our estimates make outdoor air pollution among the most important environmental risk factors for health.

"Many of these deaths are estimated to occur in east Asia and south Asia, where population is high and air pollution is severe."

Climate change since 1850 has only led to 1,500 extra deaths from ozone and 2,200 from PM2.5 particulates, according to the research.

The scientists used climate computer models to simulate concentrations of ozone and PM2.5s in the years 2000 and 1850. Epidemiological studies were then used to assess how the levels related to worldwide death rates.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jul/12/air-pollution-deaths-climate-change?

The above article clearly illustrates that it is far more important to focus cleaning up air pollution which has a clear, quantifiable effect over wasting billions on something that may, at worst, heat the planet by the tiniest of percentages in a few hundred years.

Global warming making earth ‘greener’

COURTESY NS

THE planet is getting lusher, and we are responsible. Carbon dioxide generated by human activity is stimulating photosynthesis and causing a beneficial greening of the Earth's surface. For the first time, researchers claim to have shown that the increase in plant cover is due to this "CO2 fertilisation effect" rather than other causes. However, it remains unclear whether the effect can counter any negative consequences of global warming, such as the spread of deserts.
Recent satellite studies have shown that the planet is harbouring more vegetation overall, but pinning down the cause has been difficult. Factors such as higher temperatures, extra rainfall, and an increase in atmospheric CO2 – which helps plants use water more efficiently – could all be boosting vegetation.
To home in on the effect of CO2, Randall Donohue of Australia's national research institute, the CSIRO in Canberra, monitored vegetation at the edges of deserts in Australia, southern Africa, the US Southwest, North Africa, the Middle East and central Asia. These are regions where there is ample warmth and sunlight, but only just enough rainfall for vegetation to grow, so any change in plant cover must be the result of a change in rainfall patterns or CO2 levels, or both.
If CO2 levels were constant, then the amount of vegetation per unit of rainfall ought to be constant, too. However, the team found that this figure rose by 11 per cent in these areas between 1982 and 2010, mirroring the rise in CO2 (Geophysical Research Letters, doi.org/mqx). Donohue says this lends "strong support" to the idea that CO2 fertilisation drove the greening. Climate change studies have predicted that many dry areas will get drier and that some deserts will expand. Donohue's findings make this less certain. However, the greening effect may not apply to the world's driest regions. Beth Newingham of the University of Idaho, Moscow, recently published the result of a 10-year experiment involving a greenhouse set up in the Mojave Desert of Nevada. She found "no sustained increase in biomass" when extra CO2 was pumped into the greenhouse. "You cannot assume that all these deserts respond the same," she says. "Enough water needs to be present for the plants to respond at all." The extra plant growth could have knock-on effects on climate, Donohue says, by increasing rainfall, affecting river flows and changing the likelihood of wildfires. It will also absorb more CO2 from the air, potentially damping down global warming but also limiting the CO2 fertilisation effect itself.

- See more at: http://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2013/07/13/news/entertainment/global-warming-making-earth-greener/?#sthash.XET75F3N.dpuf

Don't want them to get going too well. They might start to suck in too much carbon dioxide and cause insects to grow massive or a mass extinction event like they did in the late devonian.

Environment
Climate change
Climate study predicts a watery future for New York, Boston and Miami
Study shows that 1,700 places in the United States are at greater risk of rising sea levels than previously thought

Suzanne Goldenberg, US environment correspondent

theguardian.com, Tuesday 30 July 2013 10.17 AEST

More than 1,700 American cities and towns – including Boston, New York, and Miami – are at greater risk from rising sea levels than previously feared, a new study has found.

By 2100, the future of at least part of these 1,700 locations will be "locked in" by greenhouse gas emissions built up in the atmosphere, the analysis published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on Monday found.

The survey does not specify a date by which these cities, or parts of them, would actually fall under water. Instead, it specifies a "locked-in" date, by which time a future under water would be certain – a point of no return.

Because of the inertia built into the climate system, even if all carbon emissions stopped immediately, it would take some time for the related global temperature rises to ease off. That means the fate of some cities is already sealed, the study says.

"Even if we could just stop global emissions tomorrow on a dime, Fort Lauderdale, Miami Gardens, Hoboken, New Jersey will be under sea level," said Benjamin Strauss, a researcher at Climate Central, and author of the paper. Dramatic cuts in emissions – much greater than Barack Obama and other world leaders have so far agreed – could save nearly 1,000 of those towns, by averting the sea-level rise, the study found.

"Hundreds of American cities are already locked into watery futures and we are growing that group very rapidly," Strauss said. "We are locking in hundreds more as we continue to emit carbon into the atmosphere."

A recent study, also published in PNAS by the climate scientist Anders Levermann found each 1C rise in atmospheric warming would lead eventually to 2.3m of sea-level rise. The latest study takes those figures, and factors in the current rate of carbon emissions, as well as the best estimate of global temperature sensitivity to pollution.

For the study, a location was deemed "under threat" if 25% of its current population lives below the locked-in future high-tide level. Some 1,700 places are at risk in this definition. Even if bar is set higher, at 50% of the current population, 1,400 places would be under threat by 2100.

The list of threatened communities spans Sacramento, California – which lies far from the sea but would be vulnerable to flooding in the San Joaquin delta – and Norfolk, Virginia. The latter town is home of America's largest navy base, whose miles of waterfront installations would be at risk of being locked in to future sea level rises by the 2040s. The Pentagon has already begun actively planning for a future under climate change, including relocating bases.

About half the population of Cambridge, Massachusetts, across the Charles River from Boston and home to Harvard and MIT, could be locked in to a future below sea level by the early 2060s, the study found. Several coastal cities in Texas were also vulnerable.

But the region at highest risk was Florida, which has dozens of towns which will be locked by century's end. The date of no-return for much of Miami would be 2041, the study found. Half of Palm Beach with its millionaires' estates along the sea front would be beyond saving by the 2060s. The point of no return for other cities such as Fort Lauderdale would come before that.

"Pretty much everywhere it seems you are going to be under water unless you build a massive system of dykes and levees," Strauss said.


• This article was amended on 29 July 2013 to correct a mischaracterisation of the study. The original article stated that 1,700 American cities would be under sea level by 2100. In fact, the analysis states that these locations, or at least part of them would be "locked in" to a future below high-tide levels, which would come at an unspecified later date.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/jul/29/climate-new-york-boston-miami-sea-level

LEVANT
Down Under blunder: David Suzuki unmasked as a know-nothing huckster on Australian TV

BY EZRA LEVANT    ,QMI AGENCY
FIRST POSTED: SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER 28, 2013 07:00 PM EDT

David Suzuki said he is convinced the Harper government is building prisons to house people convicted of eco-activism charges.

Last week in Australia, David Suzuki did something he hasn’t done before: He allowed himself to be interviewed in a situation he did not control.

It was a disaster.

Usually, Suzuki speaks through his TV show on the CBC. When he appears at celebrity events, questions have been pre-screened.

Suzuki refuses to be interviewed by media he does not control, especially the Sun News Network.

His Australian visit shows the wisdom of this standard procedure.

Because when the Australian Broadcast Corporation (ABC) put even the simplest questions to him, he fell apart. But unlike his Canadian events, Suzuki couldn’t turn off the cameras.

The first question put to Suzuki by a critic in the audience was about the 15-year hiatus in global warming. There just hasn’t been any observed climate change since 1998, and it’s a major problem for the climate change industry, whose computer models all warned that we’d see significant warming by now.

Thermometers — including hyper-accurate satellite readings — say it just hasn’t happened. Here is a transcript of Suzuki’s response:

“Yeah, well, I don’t know why you’re saying that … In fact, the warming continues …. So where are you getting your information? I’m not a climatologist. I wait for the climatologists to tell us what they’re thinking.”

Normally, that’s the worst Suzuki would face — one tough question that slips past his handlers. But he had no handlers that day. And ABC let the questioner come again, citing his sources that the world hasn’t warmed: “Sure, yeah. UAH, RSS, HadCRUT, GISS data shows a 17-year flat trend which suggests there may be something wrong with the CO2 warming theory?”

Now, that’s scientific jargon that a layman wouldn’t understand. But Suzuki claims he’s a scientist, and he has opined on global warming for years. But he had no clue what the questioner was even saying. Suzuki asked for an explanation: “Sorry, yeah, what is the reference? I don’t ...”

He actually said that.

The questioner had a third go at it, speaking very slowly: “Well, they’re the main data sets that IPCC use: UAH, University of Alabama, Huntsville; GISS, Goddard Institute of Science; HadCRUT. I don’t know what that stands for, HadCRUT; and RSS, Remote Sensing something. So those data sets suggest a 17-year flat trend, which suggests there may be a problem with the CO2.”

Suzuki still had no clue. “No, well, there may be a climate skeptic down in Huntsville, Alabama, who has taken the data and come to that conclusion … You know, we can cherry pick all kinds of stuff. Cherry pick, in fact, the scientists that we want to listen to, but let’s listen to the IPCC.”

That’s classic Suzuki — impugn the motives of anyone who disagrees with him. He heard “Alabama” and thought “hick” and called them a “skeptic.” He said we ought to listen to the IPCC – the one acronym Suzuki did know. That stands for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the UN’s climate bureaucracy.

But all of those places the questioner mentioned — including Alabama — were IPCC research stations. They’re the places that crunch the temperature data for the UN.

Suzuki had no clue.

ABC’s host tried to ask the question one more time. One more time, Suzuki was clueless.

“Well, what’s the problem? I mean they’re concluding still the warming ...” That was the first question in a very long hour for Suzuki. On everything from fracking to immigration, he shrugged at best, and made personal attacks at worst. He suggested the Canadian government was out to throw environmentalists in prison — the same government that has given him a TV show for 40 years.

He accused GMO food scientists in the audience of being in it for the money — and sat in shameful silence as they each told him their companies were giving away the patents to GMO food to poor farmers for free.

It was embarrassing for Suzuki to be revealed as a know-nothing huckster. But it’s equally embarrassing for the Canadian media, who for 40 years acted as Suzuki’s PR men, not real reporters like they have in Australia.


http://www.torontosun.com/2013/09/27/down-under-blunder-david-suzuki-unmasked-as-a-know-nothing-huckster-on-australian-tv?

Edited by Joffa: 29/9/2013 12:12:13 PM

As the sham begins to fall apart...

Don't believe the hype. Earth hasn't warmed in 15 years and computer-modelked climate patterns just haven't eventuated.

I give this thing another 5 years tops and the climate alarmism will go tits up.

Hi there, thupercoach. There are Some people who would like to recruit your intellect.

Five years tops.

lol


http://www.amazon.ca/Groundswell-Case-Fracking-Ezra-Levant/dp/0771046448/ref=sr_1_3/187-9920127-4693319?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1380549586&sr=1-3

http://www.amazon.com/Ethical-Oil-Case-Canadas-Sands/dp/077104643X