Climate change and global cities

Climate change and global cities

There are 265 comments on the The New Zealand Herald story from Oct 8, 2013, titled Climate change and global cities. In it, The New Zealand Herald reports that:

Element takes a look at what authorities in Auckland, Wellington and Christchurch are expecting, how they are trying to minimise the damage, and how their plans shape up against those elsewhere.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The New Zealand Herald.

sid

Brisbane, Australia

#230 Dec 3, 2013
Gutsfull wrote:
<quoted text>
Blah blah blah. Should have saved your breath…I DON'T need a lecture on the english language, or more specifically what the term 'science' means. Incidentally, consensus IS a significant part of the equation, otherwise we would be completely at sea amidst various theories from different quarters, not knowing what to believe. To tell us that we have to blindly accept the propaganda put forward by just one side of the debate…? Your arrogance is showing through, which seems to be a common theme amongst the AGW set.
Anyway, are you old enough to remember back in the seventies, when the scientific consensus was that we were supposed to be heading for a mini ice age?
And then we were told that warming was a problem. Yet the latest information that I'm aware of shows that we haven't been warming at all for over a decade.
While I find it rather peculiar how it changed from 'global warming' to 'climate change' over the last few years, what gets me most is that the cause of climate change has the finger of blame pointing squarely at human activity. Seemingly ignoring the fact that this is NOT the first time climate has changed, and in fact climate has changed many many times in the past - well before humans were even around, let alone engaging in activities that produce co2. Unless the dinosaurs were all driving Hummers and utilizing energy from coal fired power plants…??
I'm not arguing that the climate is changing…we all live on the same planet and we can all see what is going on. I concur that the climate is indeed changing. But there is no INDISPUTABLE proof that our activities are to blame. Add in the fact that there is big money involved in all of this, plus the fact that the doomsday predictions have totally failed to eventuate, why is it so hard for you to accept that there are others who don't share your views? Let me guess…it's that damned arrogance again, eh?
What do you think is causing climate change if it is not from anthropogenic causes.

“Moumou Tangata ki te Po”

Since: Oct 11

Earth

#231 Dec 3, 2013
Gutsfull wrote:
<quoted text>
WTF...are you on crack? The earth's temperature has indeed moved up AND down, pretty much since it all began 4.5 billion years ago. Is anyone here even arguing that fact? Go take another hit on your pipe.
i agree, go back 50 thousand years to the last ice age and the neanderthals and cavemen would be wondering why all the ice is starting to disappear, they'd be wondering why the world's getting warmer and warmer.......... you can't blame that period of global warming on the same things today........,

Since: Nov 08

Auckland

#232 Dec 3, 2013
sid wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you think is causing climate change if it is not from anthropogenic causes.
Well I'd have to say it's probably the same thing that caused it the last time there was climate change. And the time before that, and the time before that....

I don't profess to have THE answer to that, but if I was to hazard a guess I'd say it most likely has something to do with the object that produces 99.999% of the heat in the solar system...the sun. Perhaps our orbital proximity, or perhaps varying levels of solar activity. But, for certain, humans weren't the cause of changing climate thousands or even millions of years past. So why should we be so convinced it is this time around?

Since: Nov 08

Auckland

#233 Dec 3, 2013
Adam Rangiaho wrote:
<quoted text>
i agree, go back 50 thousand years to the last ice age and the neanderthals and cavemen would be wondering why all the ice is starting to disappear, they'd be wondering why the world's getting warmer and warmer.......... you can't blame that period of global warming on the same things today........,
Second time in as many weeks you've given me reason to believe you're changing back into the Adam of old. The friendly reasonable Adam that we all like. Is this anything to do with Christmas looming so close?
lowprofile

Hove, Australia

#234 Dec 3, 2013
Sheila wrote:
You're so ignorant and poorly educated Wally, I don't even know why I bother responding to your inane posts at all, even when only to scorn them.
Go here and educate yourself - and don't worry, it even has pictures to help you understand the words...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/cherrypicking...
and here...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-coolin...
and here...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-coolin...
and here...
http://blogs.agu.org/wildwildscience/2013/05/...
Since you clearly don't understand the distinction between climate and weather, you probably should start here to see why your factually incorrect claim of any globally cooling climate trend is complete and utter nonsense...
http://www.csiro.au/Outcomes/Climate/Question...
Finally, here are the official facts about global warming according to our own government - yes, that would indeed be your beloved Abbott's government - kindly point out where it says anything about global cooling during the last decade and a half...
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/sites/climate...
It's not so hard to make you look foolish my friend, you do most of the work yourself.
.
<quoted text>
I don't remember saying anything about global cooling bimbo, but since you brought it up, here have a look at this... http://joannenova.com.au/

And while we're on the subject maybe you can tell me why, if all this global warming garbage is so serious how come the global carbon trading markets and pricing has collapsed to the point that it is very close to being non existent.

The writing is on the wall, read my lips 'it is over', very soon it will be just something you will be able to talk to your moron friends about on shitbook, "Do you remember when we thought we had global warming"
Cut n Paste

Minneapolis, MN

#235 Dec 3, 2013
People:
As the Sheila said;
Science understands the fundamental mechanics of Climate.
Unfortunately climate science is in it's infancy and experts think they have sufficient knowledge to control the weather.(Of course they also say they need billions of $ for further research)

Right now there is a consensus that a single control mechanism can be applied to adjust our weather. If we don't like the size of the tornadoes in a region there is an application of a scientific theory to make them less severe. I
f there are too many tornadoes... there's an application for that too.
Big Hurricanes? There's AN APP.
Floods.... OR drought... AN APP.
Collapsing bridges in Minneapolis??? APP!!!
YES! The list goes on... just look at the thousands of studies that all suggest that "dialing down" the CO2 is the single application that will solve our climate woes.

People who embrace the principles of science:
Now is the time to stand fast in your faith of Our Climate Science Orthodoxy.
lowprofile

Hove, Australia

#236 Dec 3, 2013
Cut n Paste wrote:
People:
As the Sheila said;
Science understands the fundamental mechanics of Climate.
Unfortunately climate science is in it's infancy and experts think they have sufficient knowledge to control the weather.(Of course they also say they need billions of $ for further research)
Right now there is a consensus that a single control mechanism can be applied to adjust our weather. If we don't like the size of the tornadoes in a region there is an application of a scientific theory to make them less severe. I
f there are too many tornadoes... there's an application for that too.
Big Hurricanes? There's AN APP.
Floods.... OR drought... AN APP.
Collapsing bridges in Minneapolis??? APP!!!
YES! The list goes on... just look at the thousands of studies that all suggest that "dialing down" the CO2 is the single application that will solve our climate woes.
People who embrace the principles of science:
Now is the time to stand fast in your faith of Our Climate Science Orthodoxy.
All that may be wonderful in theory, but there is no way to dial down CO2 without going back to the stone age. Especially with the population explosion which in my opinion has more to do with 'climate change' than any other factor.
litesong

Monroe, WA

#237 Dec 3, 2013
Gutsfull wrote:
I DON'T need a lecture on...... what the term 'science' means.
Anyway, are you old enough to remember back in the seventies, when the scientific consensus was that we were supposed to be heading for a mini ice age? Yet the latest information that I'm aware of shows that we haven't been warming at all for over a decade.
You don't need a lecture on science, because toxic topix AGW deniers stop reading when science is the material. toxic topix AGW deniers have no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc in their poorly (or non-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaas & have no science or mathematics degrees.

In the 1970's there was no consensus for a coming mini ice age? Forty four science papers were published in Science Journals concerning global warming. Only seven papers were published about global cooling.

Since you have no science, can't understand science, can't do science, & don't read science, your readings come from oil, energy, business & re-pubic-lick-un Pee-R propaganda strategies which deny continued Earth warming.
litesong

Monroe, WA

#238 Dec 3, 2013
Corrections:
"Gutsfull" should be, "gussyfull"

"coming mini ice age?" should be, "coming mini ice age."
lowprofile

Hove, Australia

#239 Dec 3, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't need a lecture on science, because toxic topix AGW deniers stop reading when science is the material. toxic topix AGW deniers have no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc in their poorly (or non-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaas & have no science or mathematics degrees.
In the 1970's there was no consensus for a coming mini ice age? Forty four science papers were published in Science Journals concerning global warming. Only seven papers were published about global cooling.
Since you have no science, can't understand science, can't do science, & don't read science, your readings come from oil, energy, business & re-pubic-lick-un Pee-R propaganda strategies which deny continued Earth warming.
http://joannenova.com.au/

Hey litesong here's a little something on global cooling and it's right under your nose and you seem to have missed it. It's the same here where I live, we're in the first month of summer now and guess what, It's cold and raining today and we should have started having warmer weather 6 weeks or so ago but it's like an extended winter.

Since: Nov 08

Auckland

#240 Dec 3, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
You don't need a lecture on science, because toxic topix AGW deniers stop reading when science is the material. toxic topix AGW deniers have no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc in their poorly (or non-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaas & have no science or mathematics degrees.
In the 1970's there was no consensus for a coming mini ice age? Forty four science papers were published in Science Journals concerning global warming. Only seven papers were published about global cooling.
Since you have no science, can't understand science, can't do science, & don't read science, your readings come from oil, energy, business & re-pubic-lick-un Pee-R propaganda strategies which deny continued Earth warming.
Like I said...the height of arrogance.

"Since you have no science, can't understand science, can't do science, & don't read science"

Just fuckoff with your condescending attitude, I know plenty about science...it's one of my keen interests as a matter of fact. Come back to me when you can be a bit more constructive.
beatlesinthebog

Auckland, New Zealand

#241 Dec 4, 2013
sid wrote:
<quoted text>
What do you think is causing climate change if it is not from anthropogenic causes.
Cycles.....and not menstrual!
beatlesinthebog

Auckland, New Zealand

#242 Dec 4, 2013
Gutsfull wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said...the height of arrogance.
"Since you have no science, can't understand science, can't do science, & don't read science"
Just fuckoff with your condescending attitude, I know plenty about science...it's one of my keen interests as a matter of fact. Come back to me when you can be a bit more constructive.
Nah mate...what you've got here is the hoary old "I'm an expert and I know better....my mind is made up and don't you dare confuse me with the facts!"
No Warming

Waverly, OH

#243 Dec 4, 2013
Gutsfull wrote:
<quoted text>
Like I said...the height of arrogance.
"Since you have no science, can't understand science, can't do science, & don't read science"
Just fuckoff with your condescending attitude, I know plenty about science...it's one of my keen interests as a matter of fact. Come back to me when you can be a bit more constructive.
That's the reply everyone gets from litesong when he disagrees, try to laugh and ignore it.
beatlesinthebog

Auckland, New Zealand

#244 Dec 4, 2013
litesong wrote:
Corrections:
"Gutsfull" should be, "gussyfull"
"coming mini ice age?" should be, "coming mini ice age."
As per usual...someone disagrees with your opinion (which afterall is all it is) and the childish name calling begins. I'd hazard a guess that you would happen to be one of the younger,brainwashed set...hmmmmm. To quote some interesting words by John Lennon,"Think For Yourself"
No Warming

Waverly, OH

#245 Dec 4, 2013
Well folks, James Hansen has decided Earth is already too warm. No additional warming needed for catastrophe. Wonder how well he was paid for this epiphany.

From the study :

difficult to keep warming below a target smaller than 2° C" they write. Furthermore, they say, the supposedly safe “limit” for warming of 2 degrees Celsius—which has driven global climate negotiations for years—is too high. Anything more than 1 degree C could imperil the Earth's ecosystems and societies. Hansen in particular is concerned about inaction imposing a crushing burden on today's children, as reflected in the paper's title: "Assessing Dangerous Climate Change: Required Reductions of Carbon Emissions to Protect Young People, Future Generations and Nature."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#246 Dec 4, 2013
No Warming wrote:
Well folks, James Hansen has decided Earth is already too warm.
Hansen is a scientist. He reports what the SCIENCE says. It is not an 'opinion'. It is a conclusion of the science.
No Warming wrote:
Wonder how well he was paid for this epiphany.
Free or a good wage, it is still the science. You have nothing.
No Warming

Waverly, OH

#247 Dec 5, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Hansen is a scientist. He reports what the SCIENCE says. It is not an 'opinion'. It is a conclusion of the science.
<quoted text>
Free or a good wage, it is still the science. You have nothing.
Re-think this Less Fact, Hansen is trying to override an accepted principle or theory for personal ambition. That's usually the work of politicians and lawyers, AKA liars. Maybe Hansen is working on a new career, anyone check to see if his pants are on fire. LOL
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#248 Dec 5, 2013
No Warming wrote:
<quoted text>
Re-think this Less Fact,
You have nothing so there is nothing to think about. Get back to me when you have a clue.
No Warming wrote:
<quoted text>
Re-think this Less Fact, principle or theory for personal ambition.
Out of order. What 'theory' is he overriding? And your speculation of motives doesn't stand up. He is already at the top of the science heap. What do you claim he's doing this for. A nobel prize? That would only be given after the future bears him out and only then. So he would have to be doing great science.
No Warming wrote:
<quoted text>
That's usually the work of politicians and lawyers, AKA liars.
It is still the work of lawyers and politicians. Thus we have no action of AGW induced climate change. The lies are still keeping them in public office.
No Warming wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe Hansen is working on a new career, anyone check to see if his pants are on fire. LOL
You are trying to be a wit and getting it half right. Half wit. Get it? I'd explain it to you further but I doubt if you have the reasoning skills to understand..
litesong

Monroe, WA

#249 Dec 5, 2013
[QUOTE who="no, I'm swarmy"] Hansen is trying to override an accepted principle or theory......That's usually the work of politicians......[/QUOTE]

Oil, energy, business, & re-pubic-lick-un toxic topix AGW deniers have always tried to muzzle AGW scientists, saying, "do your job & leave the politics to us". Oil, energy, business, & re-pubic-lick-un toxic topix AGW deniers would love to take the right of speech, away from people who oppose them.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Weather Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Transit officials: Officer uses pepper spray on... 7 hr goonsquad 22
News Fatal heat wave 20 years ago changed Chicago's ... 12 hr OLD need 2 die 6
News Why a One-degree Rise in Global Temperature is ... 14 hr Earthling-1 1
News Hot, dry weather stressing out Alberta's fish, ... 17 hr JUSTIN TRUDEAU ERA 1
News Memorial Day flood report paints picture of how... Fri Holiday farts 2
News NWS: Radar captures images of migrating birds Fri Lol 2
News Valley to get taste of triple-digits temperatures Fri Who 3
More from around the web