Climate change wankers
I might be out of place here...but I don't think Uplift would know who John Peel is.
Turkey does.
That's all.
Ha ha. Doggo! Slow down and read, little buddy, don't PROJECT: "You are that full of rage and shit, you cant even remember what you posted less than 24 hours ago...." Make that minutes for you Lord Sheeeeeepdog.
What bit of this you not getting? I've helped you out below with some shouty capitals.
"If so, when did I PERSONALLY supply these links?
Or are you talking about BENSKI'S LINKS, and more INTERESTING COMMENTS around them, I've REPOSTED a coupla times now ('cos you keep "dodging and weaving" as you like to put it. Or FLOUNDERING as I like to put it)? First time you've read 'em?
I know I'm not a scientist, but Benski did say to you, and I quote, "You reckon no one gives a hoot about carbon sinks and phytoplankton? The IPCC consider it explictly..."
And then HE SUPPLIED THESE LINKS to reports from waaaay back to show that, yes, scientists have been giving a shit and looking at this stuff for ages!"
Doggo, you're full of more shit than Bolivar, AND STILL DODGING & WEAVING & FLOUNDERING.
Tamper down the paranoia for a sec, Lord, is this you on FB? Brendan? Not related to Nicky's science guru John O'Sullivan, are ya?
http://www.unilad.co.uk/viral/lad-spends-days-masterfully-trolling-his-m...
Poor old Lord Sheeeeeepdog. To borrow a phrase from Andy M via Shatnerd (and yes, originally directed to you, Doggo):
"Logic so twisted, it's broken"
@ Stunet, careful he might hear you. MB that is.
I don't mean to throw this cat amongst the pigeons (so to speak):
http://www.sciencealert.com/german-has-just-successfully-fired-up-a-revo...
Pigeon chess anyone?
FFS Turkey, don't bring my name into this!
Nuclear fusion research has been going on for some time now with concerted efforts in US and Europe for well over 50 years. This is more a holy grail than a 'cat' but lets wait and see if we can get a few into production.
Yes, quite pertinent Tony Barber, Holy Grail indeed! Funny, but your comments always seem to conjure up something Monty Python-esque for me. Keep on trucking.
Meanwhile, in Miami Beach,
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/12/21/the-siege-of-miami
Talking turkey blindboy...very interesting
I gave up pigeon chess.
tonybarber wrote:Nuclear fusion research has been going on for some time now with concerted efforts in US and Europe for well over 50 years. This is more a holy grail than a 'cat' but lets wait and see if we can get a few into production.
So research has being ongoing for well over 50 years and we should wait and see if we can get a few into production ......... not sure how young or old you are Tones but I haven't got 50 years left in my current lifetime so I'd say you blowing up your arse again ...
hey sheepy, a little while back we were discussing Victorian rainfall and we had different perspectives on whether or not Vicco was more than a little dry.
Please refer to the attached article in today's Age newspaper ....
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/water-stores-in-victoria-continue-to-s...
Seems its very dry indeed.
this spirit science site is a bit waffly, and perhaps contradictorarily from me, too unscientific to take too seriously, but here is an interesting video and article.
I like how they question the idea that everyone needs a job so we constantly create meaningless occupations and encourage materialistic consumerism for our outdated economic growth model.
IPCC says economic growth model is a key problem to climate change, yet many advocates either overlook this inconvenient truth, are too scared/selfish to make changes to their lifestyle, or are too attached to their airconditioned ivory tower. or is it they know/think the issue will never get tractiion if we get too hippy about it all? probably all of the above.
the gorilla knows best
http://thespiritscience.net/2016/01/04/koko-the-gorilla-has-a-chilling-m...
"Phytoplankton contribute at least half of the oxygen in Earth's atmosphere," he said.
"As well as supporting ocean life and supplying our atmosphere with oxygen, phytoplankton blooms impact carbon, nitrogen, silicon and sulphur, which influence the Earth's entire climate system."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-08/researchers-probe-life-in-antarcti...
floyd wrote:hey sheepy, a little while back we were discussing Victorian rainfall and we had different perspectives on whether or not Vicco was more than a little dry.
Please refer to the attached article in today's Age newspaper ....
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/water-stores-in-victoria-continue-to-s...
Seems its very dry indeed.
That discussion was in relation to the comments by the Vic government on abc24 at the time saying there was no decent rain forecast the the whole of Victoria for weeks (whilst ducking for cover about those cfs burnoffs that went feral)... Not long after that, very good rain did occur ( Was that back in Nov??).......... In fact, some parts of Eastern Vic' got excellent rain..
But yeah, Floyd... Very dry now.... In Summer.... With the threat of bushfires.... Which happens in summer.... With el Nino (something that happens for eons).... Your point?
Only just got to check the recent lot of turkey breath......
""If so, when did I PERSONALLY supply these links?
Or are you talking about BENSKI'S LINKS, and more INTERESTING COMMENTS around them, I've REPOSTED a coupla times now "
Bahahaha..... So, what you are saying is you reposted benski's links, but you didn't even read the links you reposted or what date they were from? So what you are saying is you are either a numbat, or there are 2 sets of rules, Benski can post stuff from 2007, and that's fine, but anyone else posting stuff from 2007 gets lambasted?
You're a liberal party member aren't you lol
Like a dog returning to its own vomit. And vomit it most certainly is.
talkingturkey wrote:Ha ha. Doggo! Slow down and read, little buddy, don't PROJECT: "You are that full of rage and shit, you cant even remember what you posted less than 24 hours ago...." Make that minutes for you Lord Sheeeeeepdog.
What bit of this you not getting? I've helped you out below with some shouty capitals.
"If so, when did I PERSONALLY supply these links?
Or are you talking about BENSKI'S LINKS, and more INTERESTING COMMENTS around them, I've REPOSTED a coupla times now ('cos you keep "dodging and weaving" as you like to put it. Or FLOUNDERING as I like to put it)? First time you've read 'em?
I know I'm not a scientist, but Benski did say to you, and I quote, "You reckon no one gives a hoot about carbon sinks and phytoplankton? The IPCC consider it explictly..."
And then HE SUPPLIED THESE LINKS to reports from waaaay back to show that, yes, scientists have been giving a shit and looking at this stuff for ages!"
Doggo, you're full of more shit than Bolivar, AND STILL DODGING & WEAVING & FLOUNDERING.
Tamper down the paranoia for a sec, Lord, is this you on FB? Brendan? Not related to Nicky's science guru John O'Sullivan, are ya?
http://www.unilad.co.uk/viral/lad-spends-days-masterfully-trolling-his-m...
Poor old Lord Sheeeeeepdog. To borrow a phrase from Andy M via Shatnerd (and yes, originally directed to you, Doggo):
"Logic so twisted, it's broken"
talkingturkey wrote:talkingturkey wrote:Ha ha. Doggo! Slow down and read, little buddy, don't PROJECT: "You are that full of rage and shit, you cant even remember what you posted less than 24 hours ago...." Make that minutes for you Lord Sheeeeeepdog.
What bit of this you not getting? I've helped you out below with some shouty capitals.
"If so, when did I PERSONALLY supply these links?
Or are you talking about BENSKI'S LINKS, and more INTERESTING COMMENTS around them, I've REPOSTED a coupla times now ('cos you keep "dodging and weaving" as you like to put it. Or FLOUNDERING as I like to put it)? First time you've read 'em?
I know I'm not a scientist, but Benski did say to you, and I quote, "You reckon no one gives a hoot about carbon sinks and phytoplankton? The IPCC consider it explictly..."
And then HE SUPPLIED THESE LINKS to reports from waaaay back to show that, yes, scientists have been giving a shit and looking at this stuff for ages!"
Doggo, you're full of more shit than Bolivar, AND STILL DODGING & WEAVING & FLOUNDERING.
Tamper down the paranoia for a sec, Lord, is this you on FB? Brendan? Not related to Nicky's science guru John O'Sullivan, are ya?
http://www.unilad.co.uk/viral/lad-spends-days-masterfully-trolling-his-m...
Poor old Lord Sheeeeeepdog. To borrow a phrase from Andy M via Shatnerd (and yes, originally directed to you, Doggo):
"Logic so twisted, it's broken"
Yaaawwwnnn....... Well there's 2 minutes of my life wasted.... You reposted the link... Benskis link... You therefore endorsed the link... You supplied it.... Yaaaaawnnnn
"I know I'm not a scientist, but Benski did say to you, and I quote, "You reckon no one gives a hoot about carbon sinks and phytoplankton? The IPCC consider it explictly..."
And then HE SUPPLIED THESE LINKS to reports from waaaay back to show that, yes, scientists have been giving a shit and looking at this stuff for ages!"
AND YOUR LINK FROM YEARS AGO WAS ABOUT WHAT AGAIN? OH THAT'S RIGHT, HOW TIM FLANNERY ENTERTAINED NUCLEAR AS A VIABLE ENERGY OPTION BACK THEN, MAKING HIM A CARPET-BAGGER AND CHARLATAN, AND ALSO CALLING INTO QUESTION THE WHOLE SCIENCE ITSELF (Well, according to you, O mighty Lord Sheeeeeeeepdog).
ERM, EXCEPT NOW, IN 2016, HE DOESN'T (AS IS EVIDENCED IN HIS LATEST BOOK).
FUCK SAKE DOGGO, CAN YOU READ PROPERLY OR ARE YOU SERIOUSLY ADHD?
"Doggo, you're full of more shit than Bolivar, AND STILL DODGING & WEAVING & FLOUNDERING."
I see your mate Uplift is B.I.T. How's that paranoiac conspiracy bollocks working for ya (me being him)? Taken it up with the man in question yet? Nah, didn't think so. Yap on, Tinkles.
Talking turd.... Firstly, Flannery says nuclear GOOOOD.... 7 years later, Flannery says Nuclear not so GOOOOD.... If you can't get this flip floppiness of his through your pea brain, then that's ok... Hope his book was made from plantation woodchip, and printed via renewable energy....
Secondly, I hope Benski comes to your rescue.. You fuckn need it.....
Thirdly, re' sinks etc...... here are the major points of Paris 2015... Note many mentions of emissions and greenhouse gas, but not one mention on sinks or phytoplankton
Point1 - "Ahead of the agreement, 186 countries submitted plans detailing how they reduce their greenhouse gas pollution through 2025 or 2030. The agreement requires all countries to submit updated plans that would ratchet up the stringency of emissions by 2020 and every five years thereafter, a time frame that the United States and the European Union urged. India had initially sought a 10-year review cycle."
Carbon sinks mentioned??????????? None, dickhead..
Point 2 - "The deal requires a global “stocktake” — an overall assessment of how countries are doing in cutting their emissions compared to their national plans – starting in 2023, every five years."
Carbon sinks mentioned??????????? None, dickhead..
Point 3 - "he deal requires countries to monitor, verify and report their greenhouse gas emissions using the same global system."
Carbon sinks mentioned??????????? None, dickhead..
Point 4 - “Capacity-Building Initiative for Transparency” to help developing countries meet a new requirement that they regularly provide a national “inventory report” of human-caused emissions"
Carbon sinks mentioned??????????? None, dickhead..
Point 5 -"The agreement, which takes effect in 2020, calls on nations to establish “a new collective quantified goal” of at least $100 billion a year in climate-related financing by 2020"
Carbon sinks mentioned??????????? None, dickhead..
Point 6 - "When countries update their commitments, they will commit to the “highest possible ambition,” but the agreement does not set a numeric target"
Carbon sinks mentioned??????????? None, dickhead..
You gotta stop drinking out of the torrens, mate.....
Head down to west beach.... Feed the feral cats.... Unwind.... Call into the rex for coldy on the way home....
https://m.
" No change. No change , I can't change , cause I'm deep in my mold ,
I'm a million different people from one day to the next .......... "
.... the only road I've been down , have you been down ..... "
Tinkles, you're such a little yapper, aren't you? One of those horrible tiny fuckers that bites little kids and pensioners, shits under the bed, and pisses on the bath-mat. Horrible. And unloved. Poor little bugger.
Good to see your cutting & pasting skills are up there with your dodging & weaving & floundering. No reference either. Bolt would be proud. In fact, I would've thought that was where you got your bits & bobs. So I gave the cut & paste of your cut & paste a go.
The New York Times, hey? Wow! Give the dog a schmacko.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/cp/climate/2015-paris-climat...
I had a squiz at the article. I had a squiz at some links connected to the article too. One of which was this "read a complete analysis here" of the COP21 Paris Agreement. Interesting reading.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/12/world/paris-climate-change...
From this link (and pg 23 of the agreement):
PRESERVATION OF FORESTS
“Parties are encouraged to take action to implement and support, including through results-based payments, the existing framework as set out in related guidance and decisions already agreed under the Convention for: policy approaches and positive incentives for activities relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries; and alternative policy approaches, such as joint mitigation and adaptation approaches for the integral and sustainable management of forests, while reaffirming the importance of incentivizing, as appropriate, non-carbon benefits associated with such approaches.”
JUSTIN GILLIS, CLIMATE SCIENCE REPORTER:
This provision is the most significant recognition given in one of these agreements to the role forests play in offsetting human actions. It is meant as a political signal that countries should enact policies that have been developed over the last decade to save the world’s remaining intact forests. Tropical countries would likely be paid with both public and private money if they succeed in reducing or limiting destruction of their forests due to logging, or clearance for food production.
Hmmmm.
From the link (and pg 22):
ABSENCE OF “GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS NEUTRALITY
“In order to achieve the long-term temperature goal set out in Article 2, Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that peaking will take longer for developing country Parties, and to undertake rapid reductions thereafter in accordance with best available science, so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century, on the basis of equity, and in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty.”
CORAL DAVENPORT, ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY REPORTER:
Advocates say this wording sends a clear message to the fossil-fuel industry that much of the world’s remaining reserves of coal, oil and gas must stay in the ground and cannot be burned. But the agreement does not call, as a previous version did, for “reaching greenhouse gas emissions neutrality in the second half of the century,” a provision that oil-producing countries fiercely resisted. The current language suggests that at least some fossil fuels can continue to burn, as long as the greenhouse gas emissions are absorbed by a larger number of “greenhouse sinks,” like new forests.
The whole document is here:
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2646274-Updated-l09r01.html
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'm no scientist, so what does this all mean, Lord Sheeeeeepdog?
Yeah? Nah?
Yap on, Tinkles.
talkingturkey wrote:Pigeon chess anyone?
Talking turd.. You're actually Mathias Cormann, aren't you..... On and on and on, boring the absolute crap out of everyone, and skilled at saying nothing....... Page 22 you say? Page 23 you say? WOW!!!!!!!!!!! Talk about at the top of the agenda!!!!! Thanks for proving sinks aren't a priority.... Ohh man.... Haven't seen someone talk so much shit since, since the last time you opened your mouth......
Doggo, got any more of these 'daggy dad' memes up your sleeve? Hilarious! You're a real Tony Abbott in the comedy stakes, ain't you Tinkles? Or his bitch.
I was gonna search for a dodgy meme of a dog trying to surf, but your profile pic beat me to it. Ya can't compete with that!
Keep on dodging & weaving & floundering & yapping away, little buddy.
Talking turd doing tricks in the mirror... The ultimate king of dodging and weaving, calling other dodgers and weavers...
Main points of Paris? Dodge that one...
Main points of Flannery hot rocks failure? Weave around that one..
7 year old links? Dodge a rooney...
And when done and dusted, defeated like the skid mark he is, has to resort to attacking surf skills.....
Bahahahahahaha......... Come on mate..... Now is the time to stoop even lower..... Come on...... Show everyone..... You want the last say..... You want it so bad......
Poor old doggo. Surfin', nup. But pigeon chess champ? You're all over it, Tinkles.
STILL projectin' & dodgin' & weavin' & yappin' & flat-out flounderin' away.
Beer o'clock.
"Bahahahahahaha......... Come on mate..... Now is the time to stoop even lower..... Come on...... Show everyone..... You want the last say..... You want it so bad......"
"Bahahahahahaha......... Come on mate..... Now is the time to stoop even lower..... Come on...... Show everyone..... You want the last say..... You want it so bad......"................. You liked that aye, pin head.... Good one aye.... You had to use it...... PMSL... Imitation is the most sincere form of Flannery... I mean flattery.....
"Yappin".....
"The gimp"
"Amaaasing"..... No.... It's not lift...... it's talking turkey....... With his uplift blow up doll, and his xanax........
As others said about you a few pages back,
"Turkey head go back to smoking/ drinking or just pulling yourself about how good you think your shrivelled brain is."
"Don't worry , sheepo & lizard .
This Turkey is afraid of chickens "
"Go for a surf Turkey, it's your only salvation!"................. (problem is he can't surf)
Is Talkin turd Surfin??? Nup...... Dreaming of lift? Yup.....
Dodge weave... Dodge weave.... Stay lucky.... No one will notice.....
Insert more dodging, weaving, and general evasiveness on the major points of paris 2015, failed Flannery ventures, state Labor governments (S.A) looking for a nuclear future below VVVVVVV
While I hate to wade into this shit show, but what exactly is being argued? Carbon sinks are key part of each countries action plan submitted to COP21
http://www.worldbank.org/en/news/feature/2015/12/18/outcomes-from-cop21-...
"The 2015 UN climate change conference in Paris was a pivotal moment for forests because their role in combatting climate change was formally recognized. This win for forests builds on the important Warsaw Framework for REDD+ (which stands for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation)
"...the agreement relies on each country's contribution to cutting emissions which were outlined in Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC) or climate action plans, submitted before Paris. Forests are a major part in many of these climate action plans, now called Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC), which will be updated every five years so they scale up to the challenge.
Research into ocean sinks such as phytoplankton ongoing as I understand it.
Tinkles quoting Nick3. THE Nick3! Beam me up, Bowie, we've hit peak-idiocracy.
Then you 'quote' Shatner (who has got a brain, it seems) except you leave out stuff.
"This thread started ugly and could only ever go one way. Go for a surf Turkey, it's your only salvation!"
This was his response in reference to my own previous post exposing some of Nick3's 'reputable sources' and general idiocy.
But then that's your general M.O., Tinkles. Employing every logical fallacy under the sun to dodge & weave & what, ultimately? Make friends and influence people? Validate something in/for yourself? While away some boring hours?
We could all be guilty of some of that. Well, not the 'crimes against argument' on your industrial scale, Lord Sheeeeeepdog.
Here's a coupla quotes too:
"Never wrestle with a pig-dog. You both end up covered in shit. And the pig-dog likes it."
"Never try to teach a pig-dog to sing, it only wastes your time and annoys the pig-dog."
Whoah, comrades. Have I been drawn into something here? On this thread of all things?! Maybe time to have a look at this book I've posted previously on these threads. Useful and handy stuff for us all. Oh, and it's illustrated too.
Good link Shatner
mk1 wrote:Good link Shatner
Indeed. Could check off much of the table of contents in this thread.
@Stunet, in this thread?! Sweet Baby Bowie, I reckon you could check off the entire book in any one comment you care to choose of Lord Sheeeeepdog's!!! Fuck, my palm/face hurts 'cos of you, Tinkles.
(cue 'daggy dad' meme and/or some 'hasty generalisation', prime 'straw-man', hardcore 'psychological projection', standard 'ad hominem', and A-grade 'dodging & weaving', and terminal floundering)
SB...yes an interesting link, in fact a great read. Since when is 'logic' related to climate change. I should rephrase that to 'related to climate change action'.
TB, the peer reviewed sciencey bit.
To use an argument from the book, what exactly is logical about defending a dirty polluting industry that requires constant disruptive and dangerous inputs over a non (far less) polluting industry that effectively runs free and clean once set up? Got to be staunch and protect the incumbent interests in energy and pollution? Equal access to poor air for all?
MK1....the climate change science and its probabilistic results was not what I was referring to. Rather the logic used for the proposed actions to the various projected climate change metrics. As mentioned before the debate has moved on from the science and more to the 'actions'. There are many that would argue that logic was not used in Paris, for example.
Paris, aside, it is more relevant what action is taken by India and China. Will it be truly actioned ?
Logically what we in Aus do, will make zot difference to the climate metrics of the future.
Tony, I cannot for the life of me understand the "what Australia does doesn't matter" argument. Well I understand it but it doesn't add up to an argument in my mind.
Of course it matters , on at least 4 levels that I can think of. Lower local pollution, Australia is a key coal supplier so our stance there matters politically, co2 is cumulative and doesn't care for its origins so cuts are cuts are cuts, Australia investing in free future energy (renewables) increases demand and drives down the unit cost making it more attractive for developing markets.
Not to mention your key premace is flawed as developing markets ARE going renewable very quickly. Watch this space.
tonybarber still rattling on about china and india, and Australia's actions make no difference.
you seem to be one of those guys that celebrates the successes of anglo saxon culture rather than lamenting ill gotten gains. therefore you should appreciate we are way ahead in this development game than india and china. which means we are leaders, yes ' the leaders of the world!' therefore we need to do the leading rather than bagging countries that are still trying to give their citizens a basic existence. lead by example tony, whatever we do, by and large they generally follow. we cannot expect a population mostly living in poverty to blaze the trails. even though, arguably they are doing lots, despite whatever is said in paris, rio, kyoto. etc.
your bagging of solar has proven misguided, as the uptake and developments are beyond what anybody expected. so much so, governments are devising ways to tax stuff. the uptake so great in perth, power 'assets' are becoming liabilities. uptake by the commoners in the mortgage belt no less, not the pigs with all the cash
http://www.energymatters.com.au/renewable-news/wa-solar-tax-em5225/
groundhog day on the forums ..... Tones, you are the funny guy again in 2016 or is that 1916 for you and your arguments. Bout time you rolled out the one on nuclear fusion again isn't?
Mk1... That link you provided..... Said ; "Last weekend, at COP21 in Paris, international governments recognized and acknowledged the key role that resilient forests and landscapes play for both climate change and development in the final agreement achieved and through a number of financial pledges and green initiatives"........
So, the IPCC, formed in 1988, alongside major countries, has taken 27 years to "recognize and acknowledge the key role that resilient forests and landscapes play for both climate change "?........ What can I say....
Turd.... Nice try....... Tried to organize a posse'..... Even Shat's basically said "hey whoah"..... Fuckn hilarious.... Keep arguing with yourself, mung bean.... Even your repeated sledges are lame.... Now, Morris!! And his evil side kick.... There's a class sledger....
Floyd.... WTF is going on across the border bro? This is potentially the second fire now lit by the government...
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/backburn-may-have-caused-wye-rive-fire...
sypkan wrote:not a philosophical question happy, just anticipating where this royal commission thingy will go. while tb and co. seem to hold high hopes for the commission, my guess it will just be another millions of dollars groundhog day study.
ie. it'll find nuclear power is too unpalatable for aussie voters, so the money men will push the waste dump argument as they did 10-15 years ago. when the capitalists couldn't win the public over with promises of buckets of cash for the apparently measly burden of stockpiling the worlds nuclear waste, they said Australia has a moral obligation to make the waste safe as we dug it up in the first place. while this argument has a little merit, it also has an easy solution...don't dig it up in the first place!
jay wetheral knows exactly where this commission is heading, it won't be about nuclear power in oz, or even climate change. as sheepdog has pointed out many times, climate change is the excuse for the pigs to spruik their lucrative products. digging the stuff up, and storing the waste for thousands of years in metal containers that only last for hundreds of years...apoarently we have a moral obligation to do so
There are trojans on every movement, Sypo..... There are many noble people fighting (in their minds) the good fight, but remoras attach.... Troglodytes like turd breath don't get it, but intelligent people do. Doesn't matter if it's 1000 climate change advocates, or 1000 deniers, 1000 christians, plumbers, "pink bat insulation installers", a % of them are carpet baggers..... And the nuclear industry has attached itself to "global warming"...... And as I showed earlier, it has even been able to get high profile "climate change celebrities" to go into bat for it......
Fukishima changed everything... Set them back big time.... And some of their "celebrities" bailed not long after the Japan disaster...
hey sheepy,
The Victorian Government Department For Sustainability and Environment was almost universally called the Department For Sparks and Embers because of their poor track record with burn offs.... they had two goes at burning down Wilsons Promontory National Park a few years back. The Grampians also got the special DSE treatment.
Its a problem but what do we do about areas where housing should never have been allowed, too close to national and state parks.
Vicco just isn't getting the rain it used to and the bush is tinder dry.
My CFA mates reckon councils should be able to clear road side reserves like they used to be able to, these days these reserves must be conserved for conservation reasons. They also point out councils used to do small burns offs everywhere over winter but this function was taken off them.
Sad news for the great ocean road ... beautiful place sheepy, great surf everywhere ....
Sheepdog wrote:Mk1... That link you provided..... Said ; "Last weekend, at COP21 in Paris, international governments recognized and acknowledged the key role that resilient forests and landscapes play for both climate change and development in the final agreement achieved and through a number of financial pledges and green initiatives"........
So, the IPCC, formed in 1988, alongside major countries, has taken 27 years to "recognize and acknowledge the key role that resilient forests and landscapes play for both climate change "?........ What can I say....Turd.... Nice try....... Tried to organize a posse'..... Even Shat's basically said "hey whoah"..... Fuckn hilarious.... Keep arguing with yourself, mung bean.... Even your repeated sledges are lame.... Now, Morris!! And his evil side kick.... There's a class sledger....
Floyd.... WTF is going on across the border bro? This is potentially the second fire now lit by the government...
http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/backburn-may-have-caused-wye-rive-fire...
Sheepdog do you really think it's taken 27 years for the IPCC to "discover" this? Is that really what you take away from this?
@sheepdog "So, the IPCC, formed in 1988, alongside major countries, has taken 27 years to "recognize and acknowledge the key role that resilient forests and landscapes play for both climate change "?........ What can I say.... "
You could say a number of things...I've noticed two things worth saying.... ;-)
(1) you're confusing "international governments" that signed the Paris accord with the IPCC which writes the climate change assessment reports every four or five years (which those governments tend to ignore), and
(2) there's an entire chapter on this very topic in the First Assessment Report (AR1), published by the IPCC way back in 1990. That's the first global assessment they ever did so I'm going to say that the IPCC recognised and acknowledged the key role that resilient forests and landscapes play for climate change, somewhere between 25-27 years ago. But yes, it appears it took the international governments a little longer to recognise this formally. Surprise surprise.
If you want to do some reading, you can check it out for yourself here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_chapter_10.pdf
It has a sub-section titled "Effects of increased atmospheric CO2 and climate change on terrestrial ecosystems" and another titled "Effects of terrestrial ecosystem changes on the climate system". That's where they summarise the best estimates available at the time of the capacity of forests to absorb CO2. It starts with:
"It is sometimes suggested that we should reverse the long term
trend of land cleanng and grow new forests to absorb
the excess CO2. Is this suggestion a reasonable one? What
rates of carbon uptake and storage can we expect?"
Pretty reasonable question, and interesting they've been asking it for nigh on 27 years now. You might not like their conclusion because all the IPCC does is summarise the state of the relevant science at the time and the calculations as they were at the time suggested there wasn't much hope in using forests as the sole approach to managing CO2 emissions:
"Although simple, these calculations are important
because they illustrate the enormity of the task facing us if
we decide to manage atmospheric CO2 by afforestation."
So there you have it, they investigated it, found it was definitely important - so much so the relationship between forests and CO2 got its own chapter in the first ever report they did, and every one since incidentally - but would not provide enough sequestration to rely on reafforestation alone. That is, they concluded that carrying on emitting CO2 as we were at the time, but planting trees to offset these emissions, would not prevent a global rise in average annual temperature. Still a useful arrow in the quiver though.
I previously provided you the equivalent links from the 2007 IPCC report (AR4) which I'm sure you read but I just wanted to clarify that the IPCC has indeed been considering this since day dot, because as you rightfully argue the science is pretty clear that forests are important for the climate system.
Like Charlie don't surf, Doggo don't read (maybe both, going by his profile pic?). Insistence is useless.
He should've had a read of The Illustrated Book of Bad Arguments at least. There's a chapter on the Appeal to Fear, the Appeal to Hypocrisy, and the old Slippery Slope bad argument. Probably Doggo's overall favourite.
"A slippery slope attempts to discredit a proposition by arguing that its acceptance will undoubtedly lead to a sequence of events, one or more of which are undesirable. Though it may be the case that the sequence of events may happen, each transition occurring with some probability, this type of argument assumes that all transitions are inevitable, all the while providing no evidence in support of that. The fallacy plays on the fears of an audience and is related to a number of other fallacies, such as the appeal to fear, the false dilemma and the argument from consequences."
Oi, ya covered the logical fallacies, Tinkles, but forgot your famous memery. No probs, here's a daggy doggy meme for ya. Yeeeew!
There's fear and darkness all around you.
The criminals are on the run.
There's no use in hiding in the dark,
I'll hunt you down 'cause I'm the dog.
I'm the dog, the big bad dog.
Benski.... Hope you rolled into 2016, well, you old noaa map fan ;)
Just quoting the article, mate..... I didn't write it..
Firstly, in your opinion, do you think the IPCC has been as pro active re' carbon sinks in the last 27 years as it has emissions, trading schemes, and the promotion of carbon taxes?
Secondly, deforestation levels have only slowed in the last couple of years, not due to government policy, but due to , well, there's not much left...
Whilst most of the talk over the past 15 years has been about carbon trading, carbon schemes, credits and the like, sinks and phytoplankton has really not been at the "forefront" of not only the IPCC, but all so Governments , even governments supportive of the man made global warming.. And it's been echoed in mainstream media....
Eg - your run of the mill suburbanite would know what "carbon emissions" are, but if you ask them what a carbon sink is, they'd probably say "sorry I didn't see renovation rescue last week.... how do you install a carbon sink?" ;)
And yes, Benski, i am very passionate about the deforestation problems of the world, which I hope BB, Floyd and co' remember in BB's now deleted thread.... IMO, it is far more important than any wall st backed scheme.... It's just that not chopping forests doesn't make money... Schemes do.... That's why they are called schemes....
Cheers..
Sheepdog, the article didn't mention the ipcc, you did in your comment suggesting it took them 27 years to discover carbon sinks. The ipcc has been on top of the science around carbon sinks and the potential for use as mitigation since the start. The only person who claimed otherwise here, is you. You're taking aim at the wrong team that's all. Confusing governments with the people who summarise and report on the state of the relevant science. As I pointed out, carbon sinks have been a feature of their work from the start. Not sure why you're having a go at the ipcc really.
As for their stance on different policies, the ipcc doesn't have one. They summarise science and don't make recommendations about what should be done. They only analyse what would happen if a certain policy was followed. Basically, taking the scientific method, if this policy is followed then this would be the likely outcome.
If you can point me to where the ipcc made a prescriptive statement arguing for a specific policy over another, I'd be surprised. The ipcc I'm talking about, not flannery, not Greenpeace, not an individual scientist expressing a personal opinion but the ipcc.
Really they just report the current state of research and do none of their own, and they aim to remain policy neutral. They state that themselves.
Governments make policies and intergovernmental panels have to remain policy neutral lest they favour one funding government over another. I would guess that the reports from the ipcc about carbon sinks would focus specifically on how much carbon they can sequester around the world. Certainly the 1990 and 2007 ones did. I haven't read much though. Let me know if you find something from them though. Their website is very searchable.
Interestingly, New research published in Nature Climate Change has shown that the melting icebergs around Antarctica are releasing more iron than previously understood, which is often a limiting nutrient in the ocean, leading to greater algal blooms. Ironically the melting ice caps of Antarctica are likely to slow the CO2 emission process, by about 5% I think it was, by boosting phytoplankton production via the extra iron. Another example of science being "proven wrong" (i.e. refined) by more science. You can bet these results will be summarised and included in the next ipcc global assessment though!
Best wishes for the year ahead mate.
http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/163-new-discover...
Now to all you fruit loops. This is the end to the biggest load bullshit of all time. The government know's it (but still won't say it ), the smart people like me know it. When will you clowns please apologise to me for your un-educated attacks.
To all the man made global warmest alarmist's suck shit losers.
Now go and do something worthwhile fuckwits.