Friday December 4,
12.30 lunch time – 2pm
Melbourne State Parliament Steps
Spring St
This is a great opportunity to meet like minded people, and make a stance against legislation based on fraud. The Australian Government will be considering the ETS again in February 2010.
Tag: ClimateGate
Unfortunately, because of work commitments, I will be unable to attend. However, I wish everyone attending good luck and plenty of success. I will be thinking of you all.
10
I hope there’s a good turnout.
Could someone post photos and a small write-up on the event?
10
A suggestion. The next time someone asks you whether you are a “climate change denier/sceptic” ask them what they mean by “climate change”. It’s a very subjective term that has been introduced by alarmists to try and make their arguments sound more legitimate, and that of their opponents harder to justify. What do they mean by “climate”? Where does weather end and climate start? Is a hurricane, heat wave, or flood “climate” or “weather”? If 10 years of plateauing temperatures is not significant, then is anything less than 10 years significant e.g. drought, increase in cyclones etc? What does “change” mean? Is it change in magnitude, change in frequency, or rate of change? Asking someone to define what they mean by the term “climate change” may start them thinking critically about the issue.
10
I have been following the tea party activities in the USA and they are starting a series of protests at the actual scientific labs and universities where the dodgy scientists work. In Australia this would be at the ANU climate centre and the Uni of New South Wales climate research centre. I would also the University of Melbourne.
10
I know it is picky, but Leigh it is well established that the term Climate Change was introduced by the Bush administration because they thought that “global warming” would scare people in to believing in it. You can’t blame everything on the left.
10
Thanks Mattb, I guess it goes from an ‘unknown unknown’ (I didn’t know where it came from or how it was defined) to a ‘known unknown’ (I know where it came from but still don’t have a definition).
10
Mattb,
I see, if the Bush administration did it, its OK for the AGW/Climate-change crowd to do it too. I thought everything the Bush administration did was wrong BECAUSE it was the Bush administration. Apparently, if the current administration does the same thing, that makes it OK. Amazing, its not what is done, its who does it that makes it right. How is this significantly different from an Ad Hominem or Ad Hominem Tu Quoque fallacy?
From http://www.green-networld.com/facts/glossary.htm the apparent definition is:
Climate Change
This term is commonly used interchangeably with “global warming” and “the greenhouse effect,” but is a more descriptive term. Climate change refers to the buildup of man-made gases in the atmosphere that trap the suns heat, causing changes in weather patterns on a global scale. The effects include changes in rainfall patterns, sea level rise,potential droughts, habitat loss, and heat stress. The greenhouse gases of most concern are carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxides. If these gases in our atmosphere double, the earth could warm up by 1.5 to 4.5 degrees by the year 2050, with changes in global precipitation having the greatest consequences.
That is except when “they” want “Climate Change” to mean something entirely different. Its all a matter that is easily handled by Humpty Dumpty. See http://arationalhuman.blogspot.com/2008/11/humpty-dumpty-had-great-fall.html for further details.
10
Lol Lionell you should take a pill and lie down or something mate.
10
Mattb,
You are right. I can’t take a joke. Especially since the joke is being used to justify setting up an international thugocracy (aka government) intent on extracting 2/3rds of the developed world’s GDP and confiscating all of its patents and intellectual property. All based upon totally fraudulent science and the premise of saving the earth from an event that won’t in the least be affected by what they or we do. Clearly, I am over reacting. It just means my life’s work will be ripped out of my hands, my civilization will be driven to extinction, and the lives of the few surviving humans (I will very likely not be among them so why should I care?) will be more miserable than a starving monkey in a cage. Why should I worry or be the least upset? I should just take a pill and relax.
10
MattB: “… it is well established that the term Climate Change was introduced by the Bush administration because they thought that “global warming” would scare people in to believing in it. You can’t blame everything on the left.”
Sorry to rain on your parade again, MattB, but the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO)and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP).
Bush Senior was in office 1989-1993, Bush Junior from 2001-2009. So no matter how you define “Bush administration”, your well established fact is hogwash.
But I guess you can’t blame everything on the Right 😉
10
Get ready for more MSM “info-segments” The latest is how the Himalayas are melting, threatening millions of lives.
Good luck with the protest, the ETS Bull should do a nationwide tour. Keep hammering Rudd, Wong, Gillard & Combet. Expose their crackpot bunk for all to see, 24/7.
10
I think the mascot is wrong. The “Bull” is not the male animal it is what comes OUT of the posterior orifice of the bull (bull crap) which should be on display. Unfortunately, since the AGW crowd has lost their reason (god) for being, they might latch on to another common result of living (execrement) to tax and control worldwide.
In the USA it will be called CRAP and Trade.
10
From the other side of the Tasman, good luck.
A suggested banner…keep it simple…GREENS TELL LIES…
10
Bugger. If i had have checked yesterday. I’d have gone! I missed it 🙁
10
Hey AK in #10… interesting… and like Jones et al I can;t find my original source data on my claim:) The link I used to have was about how Bush Snr’s advisors told him to start calling it climate change as it sounded less scary, so I agree my claim that they invented it is probably off a fair bit, but the thrust of the argument was showing that the term was adopted by that administration in preference to global warming.
But 1988 you say… I guess that debunks the myth that the change to “climate change” has only happened since 2000 when they realised things were not warming any more;)
10
This is a actually fine posting. I’ll appropriate away get hold of your rss feed to stay reprised of each and every new posts. Strong work and a whole lot of results in your business projects!
10