Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Current Events (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=486)
-   -   Water Water everywhere! (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=539236)

  • Dec 31, 2010, 01:10 AM
    paraclete
    Water Water everywhere!
    No one quite knows how much of the continent of Australia is under water at the moment but just in the State of Queensland it exceeds 800,000 sq KM or about 10% of the continent and guess what? The monsoon season has only just started in the tropical north. To put that in some perspective it is an area larger than France and Germany combined, This won't displace the number of people displaced in the recent flooding in Pakistan but the cost is counted in billions of dollars. I have always said there is a lot of flat land in Australia for a reason and we are being shown the reason.

    Where is all that water going to go? Well some of it will go into the Pacific ocean and some of it will go inland to add to the water already making its way to Lake Eyre. Some of it will refresh the Murray Darling system and bring a halt to the senseless buying of water rights by the Federal government. This will transform the inland for years to come, the Pelicans may even return to make their home there again.

    Now it might be said all this is the result of global warming, but I remember similar events in my youth long before global warming became popular and we haven't inhabited this continent long enough to know what a thousand year flood might look like. If those events are repeated we are in for years of floods. In fact, nowhere in the world do we have enough information to really understand what nature might throw at us in a normal weather cycle. So how about we stop all this nonsense about global warming and go back to normal variability?
  • Dec 31, 2010, 06:44 AM
    tomder55

    I read about the flooding this morning . Glad to see our HAARP plans are on schedule. Once we get the glitches ironed out, we will be able to provide enough rain for irrigation and potable use ,without the flooding inconvenience. :rolleyes:

    Yeah it's not Pakistan ,but it is impacting nearly a quarter million people and has not gotten the coverage it deserves.
    http://www.wtma.com/rssItem.asp?feed...temid=29615526

    Are there been any reservoir projects in the works ? If I'm not mistaken Queensland has annual drought and flood cycles. Couldn't some of this water be captured in the rainy season ? It would help agriculture.
  • Dec 31, 2010, 06:57 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    So how about we stop all this nonsense about global warming and go back to normal variability?

    Hello clete:

    Until you present your scientific credentials for making a such a statement, I'll consider your plea to be nothing more than right wing politics as usual..
    You look around, and see lots of water - ergo, global warming is a hoax... But, the water sits on FLAT land... ergo, the earth is flat... Why is THAT observation different?

    Dude! You are a science denier.. You are a believer in Intelligent Design.. That, in and of itself, is clear evidence of your denial... It's clear, that your interest is in promoting religion and NOT science...

    excon
  • Dec 31, 2010, 07:06 AM
    tomder55

    Ironically the very basis for science is skepticism.. yet the cult of AGW calls skeptics 'science deniers'. Sounds like they are promoting their own religious brand.
  • Dec 31, 2010, 07:13 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    ironically the very basis for science is skepticism .

    Hello again, tom:

    In the language I speak, being skeptical that something is happening, and denying that it is happening, AREN'T the same thing...

    excon
  • Dec 31, 2010, 07:31 AM
    tomder55

    "denier" is a smear cleverly crafted by AGW proponents to discredit the growing numbers of people ,including retired senior NASA atmospheric scientist, Dr. John S. Theon ,who dispute the so called "consensus " on man made climate change.

    When you smear us as being anti-science ,you smear him as well ,along with the growing number of scientists who now dispute the contention.
  • Dec 31, 2010, 07:46 AM
    excon

    Hello again, tom:

    I don't know what your problem is.. You DO deny the scientific consensus... What other word would you prefer I use? Deny, is exactly what you do... The word is accurate. To couch it as skepticism, is political correctness gone nuts... It's DENIAL... It's NOTHING other than denial...

    Let's take on the second issue... People who believe in, or give an inkling of credibility to Intelligent Design, are science deniers. They may THINK they're evaluating different opinions equally, but they're not... One is science. One is religion. People who can't tell the difference are science deniers...

    That's NOT a smear. It's ACCURATE...

    excon
  • Dec 31, 2010, 02:12 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    I read about the flooding this morning . Glad to see our HAARP plans are on schedule. Once we get the glitches ironed out, we will be able to provide enough rain for irrigation and potable use ,without the flooding inconvenience. :rolleyes:

    Yeah it's not Pakistan ,but it is impacting nearly a quarter million people and has not gotten the coverage it deserves.
    1250 AM WTMA: The Big Talker | News and Talk from Charleston, South Carolina

    Are there been any reservoir projects in the works ? If I'm not mistaken Queensland has annual drought and flood cycles. Couldn't some of this water be captured in the rainy season ? It would help agriculture.

    Yes it is a HAARP attack on us, but we won't harp on that particular conspiracy theory.

    Yes it is badhttp://www.news.com.au/national/thou...-1225979694261

    You can't build a dam in this country anymore, the environmentalists will find some rare species it affects, only recently a large dam project in NSW which would prevent flooding in the Hunter, a natorious area for flooding, was rejected and in Queensland they have sewerage recyclying projects and desalination plants instead of dams. There is a long standing project called the Bradfield plan to turn these coastal rivers inland and send the water to Lake Eyre but it will not ever get off thr ground because of "green" thinking. You can't do nation building any more because of the mentality of the left. Hydro projects are outside their thinking even.
  • Dec 31, 2010, 02:24 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello clete:

    Until you present your scientific credentials for making a such a statement, I'll consider your plea to be nothing more than right wing politics as usual..
    You look around, and see lots of water - ergo, global warming is a hoax... But, the water sits on FLAT land.... ergo, the earth is flat... Why is THAT observation different?

    Dude! You are a science denier.. You are a believer in Intelligent Design.. That, in and of itself, is clear evidence of your denial... It's clear, that your interest is in promoting religion and NOT science...

    excon

    Ex, without doubt you are an idiot, I have come to that conclusion from patient observation. The Earth is flat because water flows over it, this is why we get flat land between the mountains. That I know this is the result of patient observation over a life time and I didn't need a degree in Earth sciences to discern this.

    Do I believe in God? Yes, that same patient observation has left me with no doubt, and yes, I am interested in promoting a particular form of religion which agrees with my observations. That science has not proven God is only because they haven't taken the time to examine the facts. The absence of research doesn't prove anything. Remember Albert Einstein, a brilliant scientist, he said; I just want to know the thoughts of God, everything else is just the details. So Ex, take the time to get out of the details for a while.

    Happy New Year, by the way.
  • Dec 31, 2010, 02:40 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    In the language I speak, being skeptical that something is happening, and denying that it is happening, AREN'T the same thing...

    Ok Ex I have outlined my SKEPTICISM on a number of occasions but you don't accept what I say as valid, that makes you a denier. I have not denied that industry is adding to CO2 and other gases in the atmosphere. I have not denied that we need to find ways to get away from the carbon fuel cycle. What I am SKEPTIC about are the conclusions that have been drawn that this is the major source of climate change and that we have the science, there is that word again, to effect or even reverse the outcomes we observe.

    So why won't you allow my SKEPTICISM that we have been presented with valid conclusions. I'll tell you why and that is that it doesn't fit in with your political views and you feel threatened by this. Yours is a political view EX that we must interfere to SAVE the Planet. The planet is always being saved from some threat or other by bleading hearts like you, whether it is Saddam or climate change, whereas I am completely SKEPTICAL that this is anything other than vested interests pushing their political agenda
  • Dec 31, 2010, 02:46 PM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    Ex, without doubt you are an idiot, I have come to that conclusion from patient observation.

    Hello again, clete:

    You make pronouncements on a scientific subject INSISTING that your religious viewpoint takes precedence, and I'm the idiot... Right..

    excon
  • Dec 31, 2010, 03:22 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, clete:

    You make pronouncements on a scientific subject INSISTING that your religious viewpoint takes precedence, and I'm the idiot.... Right..

    excon

    You must be, Ex, because you keep making unfounded statements about what I am or am not doing. I have made very few religious statements in this particular forum. You see, EX, I happen to hold the view that man is not God and that he will never replace him, whereas as you apparently hold the view that man, in the form of science, is all knowing and therefore God.
  • Dec 31, 2010, 03:41 PM
    tomder55

    Ex ,by the nature of the discipline ,consensus science is an oxymoron. It is probably the oxymoron of the decade .

    In the words of Michael Crichton

    Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

    Yet you apparently think some of the most credited scientists in the field who have minority views are not only AGW deniers, or man made climate change deniers ,but are deniers of science itself.
  • Dec 31, 2010, 03:44 PM
    paraclete
    Well said Tom
  • Dec 31, 2010, 04:32 PM
    excon
    Hello again,

    Let's get back to basics. You observe that it's cold, or there's lots of water - ergo, there's no such thing as global warming...

    I observe that throwing trash into the air does something bad, even if I don't know exactly what it is - ergo, there MIGHT be global warming, and if not warming, it's doing something bad.

    But, I don't have a stake in global warming. I don't CARE. I have a stake in keeping my skies clean. I have a stake in keeping my cushy lifestyle. I have a stake in keeping my country fully employed.. I have a stake in NOT sending tons of our money to our enemy's. I have a stake in finding alternative energy. I have grandchildren. I have a stake in their future.

    I have a stake in doing those things, because whether global warming is real or NOT, doing those things will nip it in the bud, alongside with accomplishing those other good things... It's win, win, win.

    Yet, you don't want to do those things... I have no idea why, even if you HATE Al Gore.

    excon
  • Dec 31, 2010, 05:11 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    But, I don't have a stake in global warming. I don't CARE. I have a stake in keeping my skies clean. I have a stake in keeping my cushy lifestyle. I have a stake in keeping my country fully employed.. I have a stake in NOT sending tons of our money to our enemy's. I have a stake in finding alternative energy. I have grandchildren. I have a stake in their future.

    excon

    Ah, Ex, your mistake is you think that we aren't all in the same boat and have similar aspirations. But I do have news for you, you cannot keep your cushy lifestyle and sign on to the argument that we should change everything that provides that lifestyle. The basic sign of madness and idiocy is that we want change and keep doing the same things. It all starts not with renewable energy and less CO2 but with changing our lifestyle. It starts with less food produced by non sustainable means adding to surplusses that have to transported all over the world, less turkeys and chickens on the table, less corn churned up to make fuel and less air conditioning and cities lit up like christmas trees, less SUV's and as far as keeping your country fully employed, start with less illegal immigrants, an immediate fix, so long as you are prepared to do the meniel jobs, or make the real decision and decide you can have someone in another country do those jobs for you.
  • Dec 31, 2010, 05:14 PM
    TUT317
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    Ex ,by the nature of the discipline ,consensus science is an oxymoron. It is probably the oxymoron of the decade .

    In the words of Michael Crichton

    Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

    Hi Tom,

    Based on what Crichton says above I would disagree in principle. However, I would be interested in seeing what else he has to say. As I said in an earlier post I think we need to get away from viewing science as some type of 'ideal'. Be it right or wrong there has always been a consensus when it comes to science.

    In his book 'The Struggle for the Soul of Science', Steve Fuller puts forward an interesting 'twist' on an old debate concerning the growth of scientific knowledge. I don't necessarily agree with everything that is advocated but it puts the scientific debate into perspective.

    http:academicevergreen.edu/circular/atpsmpa/Fuller.pdf
  • Dec 31, 2010, 05:31 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TUT317 View Post
    http:academicevergreen.edu/circular/atpsmpa/Fuller.pdf

    Hi Tut would have liked to take a look at your article but that link doesn't go anywhere
  • Dec 31, 2010, 05:51 PM
    TUT317
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    Hi Tut would have liked to take a look at your article but that link doesn't go anywhere

    Sorry, try..

    http://academic.evergreen.edu/curric...mpa/Fuller.pdf
  • Dec 31, 2010, 06:08 PM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    Ah, Ex, your mistake is you think that we arn't all in the same boat and have similiar aspirations. But I do have news for you, you cannot keep your cushy lifestyle and sign on to the argument that we should change everything that provides that lifestyle.

    Hello again, clete:

    You're out to lunch... I've never met anybody so wedded to being wrong.

    Nobody is talking about STOPPING one technology while we develop another... It's called a TRANSITION.. Like we transitioned from gas lights to electricity, without missing a beat.. Like we transitioned from horse drawn carriages to autos, without missing a beat.. Like we transitioned from an analog world to a digital one, without missing a beat.

    As a matter of fact, those transitions didn't END cushy lifestyles, they ENHANCED them. I don't see why this one won't do the same thing... You, on the other hand, think it's the end of civilization as we know it.. I have NO clue where you get that stuff..

    The fact is, we ARE going to make that transition, whether you like it or not, or we'll wind up on the trash heap of history. It's time to start.

    excon
  • Dec 31, 2010, 06:34 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post

    The fact is, we ARE going to make that transition, whether you like it or not, or we'll wind up on the trash heap of history.

    excon

    To listen to you this is the trash heap of history with all the trash we are putting in the atmosphere. Why don't you make up your mind. Sure there will be a new world out there full of windmills and solar cells and electric cars all built on unsustainable rare Earths technology but haven't you stopped to think that that is the same paradigm we have now, same wastefull use of energy, unchecked growth, mining resources. You preach renewables and change but you want what the existing technology provides. You want the existing technology to be perpetuated and just the energy source changed.There is no free lunch.

    You see Ex I'm not against change, but it has to be real change not a political papering over of the problems like the Kyoto protocol, and the Cancun accords.
  • Dec 31, 2010, 07:25 PM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    You see Ex I'm not against change, but it has to be real change not a political papering over of the problems like the Kyoto protocol, and the Cancun accords.

    Hello again, clete:

    I haven't mentioned those things at all. I don't even know what they are other than political gobbeldy gook. My solutions AREN'T political or partisan.. They're American business solutions. They don't involve the world. They involve us, and what WE do.

    It's true. I don't buy into your "can't do" philosophy. I'm an AMERICAN, after all. We can do anything.

    In fact, it's politics that are STOPPING it - YOUR politics.

    excon
  • Dec 31, 2010, 11:11 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    In fact, it's politics that are STOPPING it - YOUR politics.

    excon

    No Ex it is american politics that is stopping it, because of all those who have the same attitude you do, they want their cushy lifestyle. Did america embrace Kyoto, no ultimately they were the single holdout, so don't preach american business to me, I know the reality of it. The reality that you won't show the leadership you claim, you are leading us all into oblivion, that is what your can't do attitude has achieved and you accuse us of can't do. We have achieved our Kyoto obligations
  • Jan 1, 2011, 04:14 AM
    tomder55

    Tut ,yes there was a time when consensus science said the earth was flat. To Crichton's point ;it indeed took one scientist to challenge consensus thinking.

    Aliens Cause Global Warming: A Caltech Lecture by Michael Crichton

    Clete your nation is one of the leading coal exporters . Hard to make that claim that you are on board.
    Not that it's wrong. There were good reasons for our rejection of Kyoto .

    But don't you worry. The SCOTUS decision in Massachusetts v. EPA ,instructed the agency to determine whether greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide pose (or potentially pose) a danger to human health and safety under the Clean Air Act. In December 2009 the agency determined they were a danger,and gave itself the green light to issue rules cutting CO2. This in turn opened the door for the Obots through our EPA to aggressively regulate CO2 even though Congress didn't pass Cap and Tax or ratify Kyoto.

    We will be forced to comply by fiat ,and then watch Americans howl about the impact on their lifestyle.
  • Jan 1, 2011, 10:49 AM
    TUT317
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    Tut ,yes there was a time when consensus science said the earth was flat. To Crichton's point ;it indeed took one scientist to challenge concensus thinking.

    Yes, but we have to have a consensus so one scientist can challenge the consensus thinking. This is the point that eluded Karl Popper ( my earlier web page reference).

    Crichton is an anti-realist when it comes to science. Drake and Sagan are realists when it comes to science. Anti-realism may sound like it has negative connotations, but it is not the case when it comes to science.

    The SETI programme and the Drake Equation are a good examples of the anti-realist criticism. In a nutshell,if it cannot be verified then it doesn't exist. I suppose we could say scientific realism came about as a reaction to the dominant anti-realist position prior WW11. Basically,scientific realists would say that such things as the Drake Equation ( non-observable entities) should be given the same status as non-observables. This is certainly the case when it comes to such things as String Theory.

    Science like politics moves on. As I said before, it is unrealistic to think that we can get back to some 'pure' form of science. In other words, scientific realism is politically tainted while the anti- realist position is free of politics. Crichton is as political as the next scientist.

    Tut
  • Jan 1, 2011, 02:09 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post

    Clete your nation is one of the leading coal exporters . Hard to make that claim that you are on board.
    Not that it's wrong. .

    No Tom we are also a chief miner of uranium but on board with non proliferation. Like the communists who will sell the last capitalist the rope to hang himself and iare successfully doing it, we will sell the last communist the coal to choke himself and if you have been to China you know what I mean.

    CO2 is not pollution that is a consensus myth and a northern hemisphere problem.
  • Jan 2, 2011, 02:21 PM
    paraclete
    Ex you keep talking about scientic consensus associated with climate change but I don't think you understand the definition of what you are talking about. Here is a definition
    Quote:

    Climate change is a long-term change in the statistical distribution of weather patterns over periods that range from decades to millions of years. It may be a change in the average weather conditions or a change in the distribution of weather events with respect to an average, for example, greater or fewer extreme weather events. Climate change may be limited to a specific region, or may occur across the whole Earth.

    In recent usage, especially in the context of environmental policy, climate change usually refers to changes in modern climate. It may be qualified as anthropogenic climate change, more generally known as global warming or anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

    Some important words here
    Quote:

    long term
    Quote:

    average weather conditions
    Quote:

    changes in modern climate
    So you see there is a "presumed consensus" about changes to "average weather conditions" in the short term context of "modern" climate. Are you confused yet?
  • Jan 2, 2011, 02:30 PM
    excon

    Hello again, clete:

    You don't know when to stop, do you?? A person who falls for bunk called Intelligent Design has NO business lecturing anybody about science...

    excon
  • Jan 2, 2011, 02:56 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, clete:

    You don't know when to stop, do you??? A person who falls for bunk called Intelligent Design has NO business lecturing anybody about science...

    excon

    Ex, when have I said anything about intelligent design? In fact, you are an example of why the argument might be flawed, but seriously, Ex, you highjacked my thread and turned it into an argument about climate change and you think I should lie down. To take us back to the original discussion, we were talking about large scale flooding, which incidentally might not be as large as has been previously observed, and so cannot be blamed on climate change. So we have a bit of a problem. How should we define this problem?
    In terms of the weather of "modern climate" we could say the climate has changed because such floods haven't been observed for fifty years, but records tell us this is not unusual and might happen on "average" every fifty years. The consensus at the moment is that it is wet in Queensland and I haven't heard a denier anywhere. Why? Because the facts support the idea even though there may be parts of Queensland where it is not wet
  • Jan 2, 2011, 03:03 PM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    So how about we stop all this nonsense about global warming and go back to normal variability?

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    Ex, you highjacked my thread and turned it into an argument about climate change and you think I should lie down.

    Hello again, clete:

    No, I think you should pay attention.

    excon
  • Jan 2, 2011, 03:57 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello again, clete:

    No, I think you should pay attention.

    excon

    I do pay attention, Ex, I listen to arguments from both sides and on balance I have to say that certain assertions remain unproven both in the political arena and in the debate on climate change

    A long time ago a wise man said $hit happens and what we have is the evidence of it
  • Jan 2, 2011, 05:41 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TUT317 View Post

    Thanks Tut I particularly like the argument
    Quote:

    far too many philosophers of science today are “underlabourers” for the scientific establishment who justify the power and authority of modern big science as opposed to holding up its practice to the highest possible ethical and intellectual standards exemplified by philosophy at its best.
    I think this captures the climate change debate in a nutshell, and I definitely think climate change is a philosopy
  • Jan 2, 2011, 07:30 PM
    TUT317
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    Thanks Tut I particularly like the argument


    I think this captures the climate change debate in a nutshell, and I definately think climate change is a philosopy


    Hi Clete,

    Yes, I think there is a lot that can be gleaned from the article. In the late 60' and early 70's the Popper versus Kuhn debate about how science progresses apparently suffered from one big problem. That is, everyone (except Popper) thought they were debating science. Apparently, they were debating politics. Forty years later Popper has emerged as the consummate politician he always was.

    Regards

    Tut
  • Jan 2, 2011, 08:36 PM
    paraclete
    Well here's the latest on the water it's raining cinema roofs in my home town, nice little storm we had.
  • Jan 6, 2011, 11:12 AM
    smoothy

    Hate to drag up something that's been dead for nearly a week...

    But DAMN... were in the hell did all that water come from? (yeah, rain).

    SHould have been building a few ARKs if you had seen that coming.
  • Jan 6, 2011, 11:20 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by smoothy View Post
    But DAMN.......were in the hell did all that water come from? (yeah, rain).

    Hello smoothy:

    I don't know.. What I DO know, is that you ain't going to ask a climate scientist.

    excon
  • Jan 6, 2011, 11:36 AM
    smoothy
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    Hello smoothy:

    I dunno.. What I DO know, is that you ain't gonna ask a climate scientist.

    excon

    No... they worship all Gore and believe the facts are whatever you want to present them to be. In effect, they dream up facts to fit their beliefs... not tailor their beliefs based on the facts.

    Just like I think the Church of Scientology is all a bunch of hoooey.

    And wonder why aliens only abduct high school droppouts with alcohol or drug problems from rural trailer parks. And not say... nice Urban Mansion dwellers with advanced degrees if there was any truth behind those too.
  • Jan 6, 2011, 12:00 PM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by smoothy View Post
    But DAMN.......were in the hell did all that water come from?

    Maybe this?
    Arctic Sea Ice News & Analysis
  • Jan 6, 2011, 12:06 PM
    smoothy
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post

    Not a chance... Space aliens didn't just suck it up at the north pole and spit it out over Australia, bypassing everything in between... or do you believe that too?
  • Jan 6, 2011, 12:14 PM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by smoothy View Post
    ...or do you believe that too?

    What space aliens? Nah, I lump that in with men with grey beards in the sky controlling everything we do. LOL!

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:58 AM.