You're not too good at this "leaving the thread forever" business are you? In truth, you're even worse than Peter at it! And you've got no answer to my points so you insult me instead. Now be a good boy Stephen and do what you promised (many times) to do, which is leave the discussion to people who have a clue what they're talking about!
Don't waste your time in argument with them if they dont want to debate the facts Dave. They are in denial because it suits them, suits their wishes for the future. Flat earthers who never see beyond the 6 o'clock news. They will come around when one day. Too late to save their investment capital, but that's their problem.
How we talk about climate change has a lot to do with how we feel about it, and what we’re willing to do to act on it. Recent research from the US found that the terms “global warming” and “climate change” evoke different reactions: global warming is perceived as far more threatening.
While there is no similar research in Australia, over the past 25 years we’ve seen debate shift from the greenhouse effect to climate change to climate variability — with a corresponding decrease in action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Global warming, the US research found, is more likely to be associated with melting glaciers, world catastrophe, flooding and extreme weather than climate change. It is also perceived to be scientifically more certain.
Climate change, on the other hand, is perceived as less threatening, particularly among liberal and moderate voters in the US. Conservative voters on average don’t distinguish between the two, but, to some, global warming is perceived as the greater threat. The man behind “climate change”
Frank Luntz, a pollster and political advisor for the US Republicans, realised this phenomena several years ago. In a 2002 memo to Republicans Luntz advised:
“Climate change” is less frightening than “global warming” … While global warming has catastrophic connotations attached to it, climate change suggests a more controllable and less emotional challenge.
Luntz also urged Republican politicians to encourage the public to believe there was no consensus on global warming:
The scientific debate is closing [against us] but not yet closed. There is still a window of opportunity to challenge the science… Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate…
Subsequently President George Bush dropped the term global warming from his speeches on the environment and the White House took up use of the term climate change. Climate change began to be used increasingly often in US documents.
What the science says
In scientific terms global warming refers to the increase in the earth’s average surface temperature.
Climate change refers to the consequent range of changes in climate including changed rainfall patterns, increasing droughts and heat waves, and more extreme weather such as flooding, storms and cyclones.
Many scientists actually prefer to use the term climate change because they are concerned that global warming gives the misleading impression that there will be warmer weather everywhere. The use of the term climate change had in fact started to overtake global warming in other parts of the world even before the Luntz memo.
An even earlier term that gained popular currency in the 1980s was the “greenhouse effect”. The greenhouse effect had merit in that it was educational: it explained the mechanism for global warming and gave it a physical reality for laypeople. But the greenhouse effect is also a natural and benign effect that protects the earth’s atmosphere. There was a short-lived effort to change the name to enhanced greenhouse effect or anthropocentric greenhouse effect.
Around 1990 the term greenhouse effect began to be replaced by global warming and climate change. A search of the millions of English language books catalogued by Google demonstrates the changing preference for the new euphemisms.
Climate change is the most commonly used word, but not the one that conveys the greatest threat. Google
From climate change to climate variability
The upswing and downturn of the term greenhouse effect seems to coincide with the willingness of the Australian government to introduce measures to reduce greenhouse gases.
In 1988, when the National Greenhouse 88 Conference was held in Australia, there was unprecedented public interest in the issue. At the time, Australia was acclaimed as one of the most progressive governments on the issue. Now it is a climate change pariah.
Even the term climate change is too much for some present day governments. Earlier this year Professor Kate Auty, the Victorian Commissioner for Environmental Sustainability, told The Age newspaper that public servants in Victoria have been instructed to use the term climate variability rather than climate change. Because the climate is naturally variable, climate variability is a more soothing term than climate change and therefore less likely to incite calls for government action.
This squeamishness about the term climate change is apparently not confined to government circles. Gabrielle Chan reported in the Guardian:
There is a term that is not generally used in polite company in the bush. That term is climate change … In most cases, though, the community tends to prefer the term “climate variability” than “climate change”.
Names do matter. The US research quotes scholars who point out that “the terms we use to describe the world determine the ways we see it, those who control the argument, and those who control the argument are more likely to successfully translate belief into policy”.
The evolution of names from greenhouse effect to global warming to climate change reflects the ongoing battle over the public perception of this phenomenon. This latest iteration into climate variability may indeed bury public concern. Perhaps in Australia it’s time to resurrect the greenhouse effect.
Not surprisingly the article seems to be plea for a more frightening title to keep up the scaremongering.
The term global warming no longer scares 'cus thanks to the internet most people are now aware that there hasn't been any over the last 17 years despite a significant increase in CO2. The term climate change is now failing to scare because thanks to the internet most people now know that the climate has been changing for natural reasons for billions of years and the earth has been warmer than today many times in the past, even before man.
Not surprisingly the article seems to be plea for a more frightening title to keep up the scaremongering.
The term global warming no longer scares 'cus thanks to the internet most people are now aware that there hasn't been any over the last 17 years despite a significant increase in CO2. The term climate change is now failing to scare because thanks to the internet most people now know that the climate has been changing for natural reasons for billions of years and the earth has been warmer than today many times in the past, even before man.
That's true that there is a political element which is unscientific.
But I can tell you that AGW is a scientific fact. It was originally mostly disregarded from Arrhenius original statement on the grounds of the "saturation effect". But high Altitude research in WW2 revealed that the picture is more complex because the atmosphere functions as a series of layers, each with there own properties. Each of these layers itself has to become saturated before adding more Co2 has no more effect and they are a long way from that. Indeed one would have to include the oceans in what is collectively known as the hydrosphere.
In the 50's and 60's however the question wasn't uppermost, what changed is for example in today industrial Co2 is added to the hydrosphere at 6x the annual quantity of 1950.
Whether humanity wishes to do something about it will be their choice, science merely states facts.
The next trick of our glorious banks will be to charge us a fee for using net bank!!! You are no longer customer, you are property!!!
It would take an area equivalent 20 x 20 km to power an Aus major city, maybe double that. The question would be input costs such as land rent value, the cost of infrastructure, maintenance and generational replacement.
The next trick of our glorious banks will be to charge us a fee for using net bank!!! You are no longer customer, you are property!!!
That's true that there is a political element which is unscientific.
But I can tell you that AGW is a scientific fact. It was originally mostly disregarded from Arrhenius original statement on the grounds of the "saturation effect". But high Altitude research in WW2 revealed that the picture is more complex because the atmosphere functions as a series of layers, each with there own properties. Each of these layers itself has to become saturated before adding more Co2 has no more effect and they are a long way from that. Indeed one would have to include the oceans in what is collectively known as the hydrosphere.
In the 50's and 60's however the question wasn't uppermost, what changed is for example in today industrial Co2 is added to the hydrosphere at 6x the annual quantity of 1950.
Whether humanity wishes to do something about it will be their choice, science merely states facts.
It's not possible to "saturate" the atmosphere with CO2. Perhaps you are referring to a concentration inflection point? Anyway that's besides the point. The temperature would be closer to Venus than it is now before any such point has relevance.
You need to be a little careful saying that science merely states fact. For good science this is true but there is bad science on both sides of this debate. The reason why the biased science argument has such stickyness is because science is always biased since it is performed by humans. Groupthink is a very real effect and should be recognised by both sides of the debate. The endeavours of scientific thinking are often shaped by fashion, just like all other thinking.
However it's quite easy to see that the level of bias is far higher for those who argue against humans having a significant effect on climate change.
Australian Property Forum is an economics and finance forum dedicated to discussion of Australian and global real estate markets and macroeconomics, including house prices, housing affordability, and the likelihood of a property crash. Is there an Australian housing bubble? Will house prices crash, boom or stagnate? Is the Australian property market a pyramid scheme or Ponzi scheme? Can house prices really rise forever? These are the questions we address on Australian Property Forum, the premier real estate site for property bears, bulls, investors, and speculators. Members may also discuss matters related to finance, modern monetary theory (MMT), debt deflation, cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin Ethereum and Ripple, property investing, landlords, tenants, debt consolidation, reverse home equity loans, the housing shortage, negative gearing, capital gains tax, land tax and macro prudential regulation.
Forum Rules:
The main forum may be used to discuss property, politics, economics and finance, precious metals, crypto currency, debt management, generational divides, climate change, sustainability, alternative energy, environmental topics, human rights or social justice issues, and other topics on a case by case basis. Topics unsuitable for the main forum may be discussed in the lounge. You agree you won't use this forum to post material that is illegal, private, defamatory, pornographic, excessively abusive or profane, threatening, or invasive of another forum member's privacy. Don't post NSFW content. Racist or ethnic slurs and homophobic comments aren't tolerated. Accusing forum members of serious crimes is not permitted. Accusations, attacks, abuse or threats, litigious or otherwise, directed against the forum or forum administrators aren't tolerated and will result in immediate suspension of your account for a number of days depending on the severity of the attack. No spamming or advertising in the main forum. Spamming includes repeating the same message over and over again within a short period of time. Don't post ALL CAPS thread titles. The Advertising and Promotion Subforum may be used to promote your Australian property related business or service. Active members of the forum who contribute regularly to main forum discussions may also include a link to their product or service in their signature block. Members are limited to one actively posting account each. A secondary account may be used solely for the purpose of maintaining a blog as long as that account no longer posts in threads. Any member who believes another member has violated these rules may report the offending post using the report button.
Australian Property Forum complies with ASIC Regulatory Guide 162 regarding Internet Discussion Sites. Australian Property Forum is not a provider of financial advice. Australian Property Forum does not in any way endorse the views and opinions of its members, nor does it vouch for for the accuracy or authenticity of their posts. It is not permitted for any Australian Property Forum member to post in the role of a licensed financial advisor or to post as the representative of a financial advisor. It is not permitted for Australian Property Forum members to ask for or offer specific buy, sell or hold recommendations on particular stocks, as a response to a request of this nature may be considered the provision of financial advice.
Views expressed on this forum are not representative of the forum owners. The forum owners are not liable or responsible for comments posted. Information posted does not constitute financial or legal advice. The forum owners accept no liability for information posted, nor for consequences of actions taken on the basis of that information. By visiting or using this forum, members and guests agree to be bound by the Zetaboards Terms of Use.
This site may contain copyright material (i.e. attributed snippets from online news reports), the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such content is posted to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democratic, scientific, and social justice issues. This constitutes 'fair use' of such copyright material as provided for in section 107 of US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed for research and educational purposes only. If you wish to use this material for purposes that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Such material is credited to the true owner or licensee. We will remove from the forum any such material upon the request of the owners of the copyright of said material, as we claim no credit for such material.
Privacy Policy: Australian Property Forum uses third party advertising companies to serve ads when you visit our site. These third party advertising companies may collect and use information about your visits to Australian Property Forum as well as other web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services of interest to you. If you would like more information about this practice and to know your choices about not having this information used by these companies, click here: Google Advertising Privacy FAQ
Australian Property Forum is hosted by Zetaboards. Please refer also to the Zetaboards Privacy Policy