Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Global warming still a fear, not a fact

  1. #1
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like

    Global warming still a fear, not a fact

    [QUOTE][B]Global warming still a fear, not a fact[/B]
    January 6, 2007

    After more than 200 years, you would think that non-Aboriginal Australians would be used to the fact that the continent experiences great variability in its climate, oscillating between years of too much rain and years of too little. Yet each time we have one of these naturally occurring events, there have been calls for something to be done about the weather. And there have always been people prepared to make alarming predictions and offer simplistic solutions to phenomena that are still not completely understood by meteorologists and climatologists.

    On the banks of the Warrego River in the western Queensland town of Charleville, there is a monument to this recurring foolishness. In an attempt to break the prolonged drought that began in the mid-1890s, the self-promoting Queensland meteorologist, Clement Wragge, used six funnel-like devices to fire shots of gunpowder into clouds to make them release their moisture. The experiment was an embarrassing failure. Two of the devices exploded and the remainder failed to produce any rain. It helped end Wragge's official career, although it did not end his career as a paid spruiker to credulous audiences wanting certainty from their climate.

    Now, of course, every flood, drought or cyclone is seen through the prism of the continuing debate about global warming. And there are those prepared to play on people's fears with exaggerated and simplistic claims that demean the debate and the depth of scientific inquiry that is being conducted on the issue. Tim Flannery's article in Tuesday's Age provided a good example of this. To take just one point, it is nonsense to suggest, as Flannery did, that the present drought is the worst in 1000 years.

    Whenever someone claims that a weather event is the worst since records began, it is important to remember that reliable climate records only go back for a century at best. And even after the establishment of the Bureau of Meteorology in 1908, the records remained very patchy, and periodically became even more so when cost-cutting governments forced the bureau to restrict its record-gathering activities. With a relatively brief climate record, it does not take much for a drought to be portrayed as the worst on record, or for a temperature to be described as the highest on record.

    Even so, the evidence does not suggest that the present drought is even the worst in 100 years, let alone the worst in 1000 years. Moreover, even a bad drought will have less effect on Australians today than droughts have had in the past, when the economy was much more dependent on the farming sector and farmers were less able to ameliorate the effects of drought. Present projections suggest that the present drought will cause less than a 1 per cent decrease in Australia's GDP, whereas droughts in the 19th and early 20th centuries almost invariably triggered an economic depression as farm incomes collapsed.

    After making his alarmist claim about the drought being the worst in 1000 years, Flannery leaps from one insupportable conclusion to another, with his claim that this supposedly "extraordinary drought" is a "manifestation of the global fingerprint of drought caused by climate change", and his implication that Australians need to prepare for a state of permanent drought. In fact, Australians would do better to prepare for the floods that will almost certainly follow this drought as they have done in the past.

    As for the "global fingerprint of drought", whatever that means, droughts in Australia have often occurred in tandem with droughts elsewhere in the world. A century ago, such simultaneous drought events were blamed by Clement Wragge on the "inevitability of cosmic law", although meteorologists nowadays are more likely to ascribe the cause to cyclical changes in ocean temperatures.

    Despite Flannery's claim to base his alarmist arguments on science and common sense, few scientists working in the field of weather and climate would be as definite as Flannery in predicting our future climate. It was only a few years ago that meteorologists were unwilling to predict the weather more than a day or two ahead. Although they now routinely make forecasts for a week ahead, the public are sensible enough to realise that the longer the prediction the less reliable it is likely to be. Similarly with seasonal forecasts, which the Bureau of Meteorology now issues despite them enjoying limited predictive ability. You certainly would not want to bet your farm on them just yet.

    Predictions about the likely climate to be experienced 50 or 100 years hence are even more problematic. Although the past few decades have seen huge leaps in our understanding of the ocean-atmosphere interaction, and huge increases in our computing capacity, no serious climatologist would attempt to predict the future global climate with the sense of certainty that Flannery purports to do.

    In particular, there remain great uncertainties about the extent to which human activity is responsible for the increase in global temperatures over the past few decades, and whether or not such increases are largely driven by a natural cycle that will reverse itself in coming decades.

    David Day is a visiting professor at the University of Tokyo. His history of the Bureau of Meteorology will be published later this year by Melbourne University Press.

    After making his alarmist claim about the drought being the worst in 1000 years, Flannery leaps from one insupportable conclusion to another, with his claim that this supposedly "extraordinary drought" is a "manifestation of the global fingerprint of drought caused by climate change", and his implication that Australians need to prepare for a state of permanent drought. In fact, Australians would do better to prepare for the floods that will almost certainly follow this drought as they have done in the past.

    As for the "global fingerprint of drought", whatever that means, droughts in Australia have often occurred in tandem with droughts elsewhere in the world. A century ago, such simultaneous drought events were blamed by Clement Wragge on the "inevitability of cosmic law", although meteorologists nowadays are more likely to ascribe the cause to cyclical changes in ocean temperatures.

    Despite Flannery's claim to base his alarmist arguments on science and common sense, few scientists working in the field of weather and climate would be as definite as Flannery in predicting our future climate. It was only a few years ago that meteorologists were unwilling to predict the weather more than a day or two ahead. Although they now routinely make forecasts for a week ahead, the public are sensible enough to realise that the longer the prediction the less reliable it is likely to be. Similarly with seasonal forecasts, which the Bureau of Meteorology now issues despite them enjoying limited predictive ability. You certainly would not want to bet your farm on them just yet.

    Predictions about the likely climate to be experienced 50 or 100 years hence are even more problematic. Although the past few decades have seen huge leaps in our understanding of the ocean-atmosphere interaction, and huge increases in our computing capacity, no serious climatologist would attempt to predict the future global climate with the sense of certainty that Flannery purports to do.

    In particular, there remain great uncertainties about the extent to which human activity is responsible for the increase in global temperatures over the past few decades, and whether or not such increases are largely driven by a natural cycle that will reverse itself in coming decades.

    [/QUOTE]

    [url]http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/global-warming-still-a-fear-not-a-fact/2007/01/05/1167777279519.html[/url]

  2. #2
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    This story is a [B]news opinion[/B] vice what I have presented in the other thread, an article scripted by a group of Scientists.

    Here is my posting from the other thread about XOM:

    [I]Major difference here is that this article is completed by Scientists.

    This is not an article by a writer, a former VP or any other non-technical professional.

    This article has links to sections where you can inquire about the integrity of the Scientists, you can meet the experts, see where they work and check the credentials.

    They just don't tell a story, they have solutions to the issue. I think that after reviewing this site you can be more than satisfied with the results that these Scientists publish.

    Please don't let the word "Union" be a turn off.

    Like I posted the other day, the whisper is getting louder on Global Warming.

    Please contact these Scientists to check the integrity of what they have presented:

    For more information call:

    EMILY ROBINSON
    Press Secretary
    202-331-5427
    [email]erobinson@ucsusa.org[/email]

    AARON HUERTAS
    Assistant Press Secretary
    202-331-5458
    [email]ahuertas@ucsusa.org[/email]





    RICH HAYES
    Media Director
    202-331-5437
    [email]rhayes@ucsusa.org[/email][/I]

  3. #3
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    38,782
    Post Thanks / Like
    in other news, gravity is just a theory

  4. #4
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    It's comical a clown like yourself who posts opinions he reads on other sites then continually fails miserably when challenged to back them up with a shred of evidence would post post some redundant span such as this.....

    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg]This story is a news opinion vice what I have presented in the other thread, an article scripted by a group of Scientists.


    .................................

    [/QUOTE]


    the author of the story specifically points out that while they claim this is the worst draught in 1000 records barely go back 100-years- so just as with all you other extremist positions you are again pissing in the wind....

  5. #5
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    7,284
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]It's comical a clown like yourself who posts opinions he reads on other sites then continually fails miserably when challenged to back them up with a shred of evidence would post post some redundant span such as this.....




    the author of the story specifically points out that while they claim this is the worst draught in 1000 records barely go back 100-years- so just as with all you other extremist positions you are again pissing in the wind....[/QUOTE]

    Please call them and challenge the Scientists if you have issue with the scripting. The phone numbers are there for you to do so.

    As I said before, in time you will see a lot more of the truth from me. It does not have to come all at once.

  6. #6
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    7,680
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Come Back to NY]It's comical a clown like yourself who posts opinions he reads on other sites then continually fails miserably when challenged to back them up with a shred of evidence would post post some redundant span such as this.....




    the author of the story specifically points out that while they claim this is the worst draught in 1000 records barely go back 100-years- so just as with all you other [B]extremist positions [/B] you are again pissing in the wind....[/QUOTE]

    Why do you consider Global Warming an "Extremist" position?

  7. #7
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg]Please call them and challenge the Scientists if you have issue with the scripting. The phone numbers are there for you to do so.

    As I said before, in time you will see a lot more of the truth from me. It does not have to come all at once.[/QUOTE]

    typical liberal/leftists garbage...

    allegations are made yet it is not up to those making the allegations to show evidence rather those who read the allegations must do the research...

    and I'm sure we'll "see a lot more of the truth from you"....just about the same time the reparations check appears in your mailbox.... :yes:

  8. #8
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    31,407
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg]

    As I said before, in time you will see a lot more of the truth from me. It does not have to come all at once.[/QUOTE]

    reading this again I guess the justifiable assumption is most of your posts have been a pack of BS lies to this point... ;)

  9. #9
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    London, Ontario
    Posts
    6,871
    Post Thanks / Like
    Again, nobody would ever acuse me of being a liberal, but why is it so hard to believe that the way we treat the earth will lead to the raising of temperatures world-wide?

    You can't argue (like many do here on various topics) that A=B=C, then when it comes to this topic, say that A does not necessarily lead to B or C.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us