It also makes you wonder what wars and such are having on the GW--surely they must do a LOT of damage to the earth? What about all the car racing / Lights left on in city offices / fireworks displays / and such etc. Makes you wonder about them telling us to turn off lights --walk to work--etc



I also remember my childhood days where the temps were very hot--and also very cold.



Also all these officials travelling to Denmark--that surely would cause more emissions

Thanks for your interest Toot2000

Family Planning is really dirt cheap: the pill, condoms, injectables etc cost much less than we in the west pay for them.

When compared to what Oxfam spends on feeding those who can not support themselves, due to drought etc, family planning is value for money. Add the benefits of reducing maternal deaths from abortion (40% of unwanted pregnancies are aborted, with a significant maternal mortality) and you get a glimpse of the benefits.

Poverty? How can a family struggling to survive keep adding mouths to feed?

AIDS reduction by use of condoms? Why on earth is the subject still taboo?

For information, a good place to start is the United Nations Population Fund: http://www.unfpa.org/public/

Happy reading!

But therein lies the problem, I'm only an ordinary person and have to rely on the scientists to tell me what's going on, and what the right thing to do is but they can't agree on anything. So that leaves me confused and sceptical.



If you go to the search engine-- [url=http://www.bing.com/]bing [/url] ---and type in either---climate-gate or climategate, you'll get a good idea of the confusion and even possible deception by the scientists from whom the politicians and the rest of the world have been receiving information on CC.

--------------------------------



Also of interest is an article written by Gary Johns, who was a minister in the former Hawke Labor Govt.



[i]"Labor opted out of the climate change debate years ago by following the consensus between climate change scientists and European economics. There was no political antenna telling them that this stuff really hurts. The consequence is that there is no plan B."[/i]







[i]"Sooner or later we will have to accept that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is not like a crash diet, there is no lap-band surgery. And since modern societies cannot exist without cheap, non-renewable fuel, realistic substitutes such as nuclear energy are fast coming online everywhere except in places such as Australia, where coal and gas are cheap."[/i]







[i]"The Rudd ETS was a giant washing machine churning taxes."[/i]





[url=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/thank-heavens-cap-and-trade-is-dead/story-e6frg6zo-1225808817696]Source[/url]

One of the main reasons we needed a new, very expensive book of tables each year, was because the Magnetic North, was retreating south, each year, since around 1900 AD, at the rate of approx., 11 kilometres each year. I have not got the advantage of a BA with honours, like KRudd, so I am open to a simple explanation of the effect of the yearly magnetic change on the weather.

It is a wonder you didn't get lost.

The North Magnetic Pole is moving continually northwestward.

During the 20th century it moved 1100 km, and since 1970 its rate of motion has accelerated from 9 km/year to 41 km/year

Hi fwed, I sure got that wrong. I stand corrected. In my atral navigation defence, let me say, that the only effect of the magnetic north, was, from the South Pacific point of view, the movement to the west. Once you take your sights, you are processing the mathematics of tables, as written. I am somewhat surprised that the movement has been so inconsistant, so I have looked up a little more on the subject. I have just found some interesting figures from the Natural Resourses Centre in Canada

Year Latitude ( °N) Longitude ( °W)

2001 81.3 110.8

2002 81.6 111.6

2003 82.0 112.4

2004 82.3 113.4

2005 82.7 114.4

These figures show a movement which is extremely inconsistant. I have not found any reason, yet, for this phenomina, but I will keep looking.

It is a serious question however. Is it not possible, that this movement could have some effect on thw World Climate change?

As for the info re Greenland, I was not privy to what was in the mind of Eric the Red. Sorry.

Just out of interest, I had looked up some info on Greenland, & did not read any reference to the discovery of of a new land mass under a glacier. That is very interesting.

For the record, I do believe in climate change, however, I am not convinced that man has caused it, other than the results of cutting down over half the trees on Earth. No tax on the western World will replace these trees.

Why can't some of these brilliant scientists tell us why the surface temperature on Mars, appears to be paralleling that on Earth?

Just one final uneducated question. It would appear to me that the Carbon Dioxide produced by the factories of the World pale into insignificance compared to the combined emmissions from the motor car. You could cut the carbon dioxide, in Sydney, by, probably, 30%, by making it illegal to drive a motor car in peak periods, with only the driver on board

Why can’t some of these brilliant scientists tell us why the surface temperature on Mars, appears to be paralleling that on Earth?

That is an interesting point as apparently scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s.

The difference being the distance from the sun and Mars having an average surface temperature of approx minus 63 deg C.

Is it possible that the planets of our solar system have changed position slightly in relation to the sun.

Interesting theory.

Fwed, are you a rocket scientist?

Fwed, are you a rocket scientist?

LOL , no, far from it.

I am a retired bachelor who, if I find something I think to be interesting, will look around for some answers.

This article is from the Daily Mail, looks like they are running scared.



by Ben Webster, Environment Editor in Copenhagen



The Met Office has embarked on an urgent exercise to bolster the reputation of climate-change science after the furore over stolen e-mails.



More than 1,700 scientists have agreed to sign a statement defending the “professional integrity” of global warming research. They were responding to a round-robin request from the Met Office, which has spent four days collecting signatures. The initiative is a sign of how worried it is that e-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia are fuelling scepticism about man-made global warming at a critical moment in talks on carbon emissions.



One scientist said that he felt under pressure to sign the circular or risk losing work. The Met Office admitted that many of the signatories did not work on climate change.



John Hirst, the Met Office chief executive, and Julia Slingo, its chief scientist, wrote to 70 colleagues on Sunday asking them to sign “to defend our profession against this unprecedented attack to discredit us and the science of climate change”. They asked them to forward the petition to colleagues to generate support “for a simple statement that we . . . have the utmost confidence in the science base that underpins the evidence for global warming”.



Met Office reports on temperature changes draw on the work of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit, from which the e-mails were hacked. Phil Jones, unit director, has agreed to stand down while an investigation takes place into claims that he manipulated data to exaggerate the warming trend and tried to block publication of alternative views.



One scientist told The Times he felt under pressure to sign. “The Met Office is a major employer of scientists and has long had a policy of only appointing and working with those who subscribe to their views on man-made global warming,” he said.



Professor Slingo denied that the Met Office had put anyone under pressure. “The response has been absolutely spontaneous. As a scientist you sign things you agree with, not because you are worried about what the Met Office might think of you,” she said.



The 1,700 signatories, a fraction of the research scientists working in Britain, include Sir John Houghton, former chairman of the science working group of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Sir Brian Hoskins, head of the Grantham Institute at Imperial College, and Professor Lord Hunt of Chesterton, a climate scientist at University College London.



Professor Slingo said the statement was carefully worded to avoid claiming all climate scientists were beyond reproach. It says the evidence for man-made global warming is “deep and extensive” and comes from “decades of painstaking and meticulous research by many thousands of scientists across the world who adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity”.



Benny Peiser, of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, which claims man-made climate change has been exaggerated, said the petition showed that the Met Office was rattled.



143 Comments