Rise of sea levels is 'the greatest lie ever told'

And of course you aren't following your side like a sheep, it's just us. Good, because there is a lot like us. Your side are like lemmings. Watch that first step.
Now I have no motivation other then to see my grandchildren have a better future. I don't own a home, I don't own a busines, I don't have an account for gas, water, electricity or rates. I don't shop at supermarkets so it's not about money. I hats big corps and banks. I pick my side based on common sense.
I don't have an electricity account or gas or rates. I.

 

Not at all mate your forgetting i'm a labor man have been ever since i started working in the blue collar industry.

But hey just because i'm labor if i think the labor government is wrong then i will not support them on that issue.

TV comes across as a guy that would support his party even if they turned Australia into a titanic.

Political persuasion has nothing to do with it as far as i'm concerned.

Its either good or bad for the country.

 

Gravity doesn't get stronger the further away an object is.

 

True, someone here said this but made a little error. They said that if the moon was twice as far it's affect would be half, but gravity is exponential, but they're close enough

 

I never was very good at math...but the farther away an object is the less "pull" it has.

 

Pleeaaasse dumb, who are you trying to fool, you've bagged Hawke and Keating constantly on here and never liked rudd or gillard. You've never spoken negatively about whitlam, therefore not sure if you go back that far! You've never bagged a conservative government from what I have read and in fact blame Keating for selling off telecom when it was actually Howard! The coalition in fact sold most of our public assets! Let me tell you, I'm not a labor man, I sit smack bang in the centre of politics. I just happen to see some pathetic arguments on this forum opposing the government at every turn! Look, you've just got your own kooky perspectives and agenda, while others are like parrots simply repeating that extreme right nutter tony abbott! Actually, "you" also spew out his propaganda and rhetoric verbatim! Sick of having to read the same pathetic sh!t to be honest! It would be fantastic to debate certain points but there are too many mass debaters on here to try and reason solid logical conclusions! The only good arguments are from lefties to be honest!!

 

Pot and Kettle stuff TV.

If you are accusing Dumb of lying about his political persuasion then I must say that is highly hypocritical of you as you do exactly what you are accusing him of...... Only on the opposite side.

If you are telling the truth why can't he be ? Why is he lying and you aren't ?

Remember your catch cry..... Keeping it real.

Well at least some of the time hey ?

 

Well I wasn't going to dob anyone in, but yes that is true. Science is a funny thing, for centuries we have looked at science as a "truth". Some scientists still do. Once we said things were laws, we wouldn't dare do that now since all previous "laws" have found to be "not always correct". Science is our (scientists) way of explaining the things we observe, with whatever limited knowledge we have available.

Now I am a scientist and you can all discount the 6 years intensive study I did, you can discount the 20 years since I have been keeping in touch with my science. You can discount the few million pathology reports I have reviewed and signed in my years in the pathology labs. But do not discount my common sense. All the learned academic skills I have gained over the years are not what allowed me to make it in my field, the one thing that did was my common sense.

One big thing I learnt was balance, status quo, equilibrium. Equilibrium is the key factor in life, it is equilibrium that allows us to continue to evolve. All reactions in our bodies, and indeed the world, are a chemicals desire to reach equilibrium. Physicists talk about entropy, the amount of order, or disorder in the universe.

Most things are moving towards the lowest entropy state, like water flowing down hill. However nature tries to defy this force, it has over the millenium developed ways of using entropy just as man has. We for example dam our rivers to besides other things, to harness the power of the water trying to get to it's lowest point, hydro power. Nature uses the power of sunlight to raise the entropy in chemicals (sugars, starches, proteins etc) in plants. These chemicals capture this energy and lock it into their configuration. We eat the plants, or the animals that eat the plants and we release that energy to drive our own chemical reactions, pushing some up in enthalpy whilst others go down, it's about balance and equilibrium.

We all understand to some degree that a human, or any animal or plant is nothing more really then a machine. Millions of reactions every second, millions of molecules moving up and down the enthalpy ladder all trying to obtain equilibrium. Now our bodies for example operate at a very fine set of conditions, a slight deviance from these conditions and we become very ill very quickly and can die. Our bodies can only operate within a fine tolerance as we all know.

Our bodies by their very design operate in a fine temperature range. A few degrees either way and we cease to function. We are but a small part of our ecosystem, our ecosystem is no different from us. Life on earth is Billions of processes occurring every millisecond, all trying to achieve the lowest point of entropy, the point of greatest disorder. Life is nothing more then the sustaining this balance, using the power (like water flowing downhill) to function, to build, to repair, to create new life.

We humans have a unique place in this econosphere, we have the ability to DELIBERATELY change the balance, but unfortunately with knowledge comes arrogance. We think we know it all, we think we are indestructable, we think we can tweak things and change nature. Well we can to a degree, like water we can dam it, we can pump it up hill, but we cannot stop it from wanting to go back down.

Our small contribution to the atmosphere, to the waters, to the land, our pollutions, our misuse of land, our damming water ways all disrupt the Natural Course of things, if we push it too far, maybe just a few 0.1% of balance, then the results can be catastrophic, the same as 2 or 3 degrees can be fatal.

When a dam gets a small crack in it, the power of the water trying to reach the sea, lower entropy will cause the total destruction of the dam, most things in it's path are destroyed. Our homes, bridges and cars, anything in it's path. We usually lose everything except a few precious things we grab, if we are lucky, if we aren't we lose even our lives. Materialism is swept away as we cling to branches just to survive.

Let's stop before the cracks get too big, for unlike the dam, we have nowhere to evacuate to, no limbs to cling to.

 

Well they both cannot be telling the truth, not if they are 180 degree opposed. There is science that points both ways, as I have stated many times, and I am not taking the credit for it, it is general knowledge, science is just a way of explaining what we observe. Relativity itself tells us that what we observe depends on where we are when we observe it.

Newton was on a train, he observed a fly flying through the carriage, sometimes it flew in the direction the train was travelling, sometimes it was flying in the opposite direction. He postulated however, that to someone standing on the platform as the train raced through a station, the fly is travelling in the same direction as the train, even when it is actually flying in the opposite one. It is relative to the observers position.

I am not looking at the science, I am looking at the two outcomes.

If we are warming, if the sea levels are rising, like the dam cracks, it may be too late. If we reduce pollution, if we develop new science, if we curb our greed and arrogance, if we live better, and they are wrong, we have lost nothing and gained a lot.

If they are right though, and we are warming, and we do nothing, then like the cracks they will grow, and once the dam breaks, God help us.

 

I am purely talking about the insinuation that Dumb is lying about his political allegiances, nothing more.

As far as climate change is concerned I believe there is a lot of misinformation from both sides and it all depends on what you wish to believe.

Me personally think we are a wastefull bunch and it wouldn't hurt to clean up our act, better safe than sorry. Like giving up smoking, you don't have to, but gee it would help your health if you did.

It always amazes me though that the government of the time want this clean up but rarely do they help in the cost of it. Take asbestos removal for instance. They want this cleaned up but then place exhorbatant ( spell check please ) prices on the dumping charges, so people find a way of illegally dumping it in wash outs and the like. It is all lip service to me DV. They are all talking out their rear ends about the issue, and none of them are interested in finding a workable alternative, because the workable alternatives do not suit their political agendas.

 

Not bad DV, I would agree with most of that. I have always believed we humans need to clean up our act and unlike most people I have done just that. But you have got a couple of things wrong, firstly you should understand that 'common sense' is not always universal. Common sense in many instances demands on a persons age, gender, culture, inteligence, education, peer group and life experience. There can also be pyshcological issues that impact on what a person percieves as common sense. Common sense to one person is not necessarily common sense to another.
You have got the idea of entropy wrong too. Systems tend toward maximum disorder, not order.

 

Did I say they tend towards order, well I meant disorder, entropy is the mainstay of chemical reactions and as a biochemist, a mistake like that was totally accidental.

 

Actually, re-reading my post I never said that entropy was systems moving towards maximum order, but did imply that they were moving towards maximum disorder, but I should have stated it clearly, hand slapped.

As for common sense of course you are right here too, not all people have it, unfortunately. But the having of common sense, or lack of it, is less dependent on age, culture, intelligence, education, peer group and experience then any other thing.

Our legal system is based on common sense. Ignorance is no defence, why, because it is common sense. My son found a $20 note one day in a store, I told him to give it to the shop manager. He said "Why, I found it". I said, "Is it yours". her said "No", so I said "Well then if you keep something that is not yours, isn't that stealing". Common sense, no need for knowledge of the law. Yes a few psychological conditions devoid the person of common sense, but even a lot of people with psychological problems still have it.

The greatest enemy of common sense are greed (for money and/or power) and arrogance.

 

Where have I been hypocritical? I could show you all day that dumbs ideals and what he says do not match in any form. You could turn him upside down, twist him a little and shake him adding a pinch of salt and a squeeze of lemon.....he still does not come out looking like a labor supporter! Now answer how you believe i'm being hypocritical with my persuasion! No Bulls!t accepted either slippery!

 

What a load of rubbish DV, you clearly have no idea what common sense means! Broadly speaking common sense is the ability, based on a persons knowledge and experience, to understand and see the actual and potential effects, consequences and outcomes of a given action or the ability to explain a given phenomenon. Common sense however is tempered by a persons understaning of right and wrong and the significance they may place on different things, that is why common sense can differ between cultures and age groups. So called common sense also can fall foul from lack of knowledge and understanding, a perfect example was the fact that once it was only common sense that the sun revolved around the earth.

 

Common sense is thinking indepthly not superficially. Common sense is prudence in judgement based on facts. Blissfully ignorant people lack in common sense, because they're lazy to decipher facts and other detail! Common sense is the ability to think outside ones own circumstances and realise a bigger picture. Common sense deteriorates as a consequence of greed and arrogance, because the focus is not holistic but one dimensional!

 

All the above sounds good to me, unless you are some how trying to compare what you said to the carbon tax and CO2.

Which i think you are, then it turns into waffle.

You know that today we have some of the lowest coldest temperatures in our history we also have some of the lowest concentrations of CO2 in our history.

Are you trying to say that this is where its suppose to stay, that is CO2 and temperature or that if it increases we are some how jeopardise our exististence.

Dude ist really simple just look into our history temperature drives CO2, temperature has peaks and troughs which then will drive CO2 to have peaks and troughs.

If you really are a scientists you cannot expect us to stay here fixed on 390 ppm concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere when in the past we have had 7000ppm because the average global temperature was 10 degrees celcius higher than it is today.

Common sense right, temperature has peaks and troughs in accordance with its heart beat the sun our sun and what its doing sun spots flares etc etc.

So then it only stands to reason that CO2 levels will also have peaks and troughs since the temperature drives the amount of natural CO2 that is thrown up into our atmosphere.

At the moment at this steady global average temperature we have CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere of 0.039% of 1.

If the sun for some reason or another develops a cough or is taken with a virus and starts to have measles (sunspots) sending out hugh flares in the direction of the Earth not only will our global average temperature go up but so will the concentrations of CO2 from the ecosystems maybe even as high as 7000ppm which looks to be the highest in our history from what i have found.

So the consensus says that man over the last hundred years has managed to place roundabouts 110ppm of CO2 into our atmosphere, (280ppm - 390ppm) and that this amount of CO2 will destroy us?????????????????????????

So SAYS the IPCC from their parametric computer generated forecasts.

There's nothing else in our history that tells us that we are destroying ourselves because of the small amount of CO2 WE not the ECOSYSTEM have thrown up in the air.

Remember ONLY THE IPCC's parametric computer generated forecasts are saying that is what will happen.

The total amount of CO2 thrown up by man every year is

5 gigatonnes

The total amount of CO2 thrown up by the ecosystems every year is

150 gigatonnes

Now keep in mind that if the sun gets sick and spews out afew sunspots increasing the Earths global average temperature by one degree the ecosystems have the potentional to increase our CO2 concentrations by 700ppm to make a grand total of 1090ppm.

And the higher the temperature goes the more the ecosystems will spew out absolutely dwarfing mans steady stream of CO2 at 110ppm.

So whats all the fuss about we put out 110ppm the ecosystems at any time depending on the sun can throw up 1000's of CO2 ppm.

Will we die if the CO2 concentrations go to 1090ppm no we wont will this destroy the earth no it wont, will this make more cyclones and earth quakes and tornados.

Some how i just dont think so.

The other side of the coin, bankers own the corporations that own our utilities, bankers have thought of a bright way to open up a new market so they can play their fun and games in.

The farming and selling of carbon credits this gives them the right to ownership of all farming land and forests.

These are the people that will be entrusted with saving the planet from pollution???????????????????????

The carbon tax is designed as a way to enslave the whole world into paying for their energy use.

You say your a scientist well then put 2 and 2 together.

 

Are you trying to say that all labor supporters should follow their party blindly into murky waters??????????????

WTF are you talking about i have my brain and i utilise it thank you very much.

Gough was my hero and to a lesser extent Fraser although he did go in swinging for the corporations he wasn't a traitor.

Hawk and keating detsroyed our unions sold government assets and opened the way for the rest of the world to pillage and rape our wealth.

Sure the liberals sold things too put the hawk Keating government opened the flood gates.

Get a grip on reality will you Keating started the sale of Telstra Howard finished it.

Both traitors to the Australian electorate.

 

double post.

And i do like Rudd, especially how he handed out $45 billion dollars in gifts and government projects to the people of Australia.

Instead of giving it to the BANKERS.

I suppose your one of those that would have prefered he gave it to the bankers so they could stimulate the economy?

Strange isn't it

1. He gave Australia's QE back to the people of Australia

2. He did call for a nation bank before fat joe and abbott slapped him down with a communist tag

3. He was in favour of an ETS but said now was not the right time for Australia.

And bang he was replced by Julia (brutus) Gillard.

 

Well you stated that Dumb was trying to fool us into thinking he was essentially a Labor man. Your evidence was that he is always bagging out the last few Labor leaders all the while never having a bad word to say about a conservative government. Now I could be wrong but I can't recall you ever having a good word to say about a conservative government or a bad word about a Labor government. Mmmmm ? Hypocrisy perhaps ?

Then you you state that you are not a Labor man and sit right in the centre of politics. If this is true then so is the Tooth Fairy.

TV this is why I stated you were being hypocritical.

 

I don't think most people will argue that CO2 concentrations have been higher in the past and that there are other things that affect our environment besides people. But consider that the higher concentrations of CO2 from the past have been locked up in coal and oil and have given us the environment we live in today and if we release this carbon back into the atmosphere we are forcing the temperatures to rise.

I am against a carbon tax because there are better solutions. Some solutions make economic and environmental sense. I am going to build a digester (as soon as I can get around to it) to heat my farrowing pens. I do not provide heat to my little piggies so I have to wait until the temps are above 60 degrees F at night to keep baby pigs from freezing to death. If I use my leftover cow and pig manure I can farrow at any time of year and burn the methane that would be put in the air and make money in the process. This should give me an extra litter per year. In the warmer months i can use the methane to heat produce to feed the pigs and make that legal also. The leftover water can be used to nourish my fields and save money on commercial fertilizer and use less oil.

If people are educated to the fact they can save or make money on it everyone will go green.

 

I don't bag out the liberals pretending I'm a conservative dude, get the context right! I bag out extreme conservatism. I think you might be a little dishonest where you stand slippery. I'm not a labor man, I'm a defender of the truth!

 

Your a bullsh1t artist.

 

Your a bullsh1t artist.

 

What a compliment, why not me too, aren't I a bull(*)(*)(*)(*) artist too