on 21-09-2013 04:25 PM
PROFESSOR Tim Flannery has been sacked by the Abbott Government from his $180,000-a-year part-time Chief Climate
Commissioner position, with the agency he runs to be dismantled immediately.
No surprises in climate agencies' dismantling
"..Chief Commissioner, Tim Flannery, is Australia's Al Gore in that he is the figure most loathed and pilloried by the people who are
not convinced of the climate science. Much was made of his commissioner's salary and his supposed waterfront property..."
http://www.abc.net.au/environment/articles/2013/09/19/3852408.htm
Are we really going to miss Tim? ...... I say NO.
Solved! Go to Solution.
on 22-09-2013 04:03 PM
Roy Spencer and John Christy?? You'll have to do better than that lol.
Roy Spencer lost a lot of respect when he signed the Cornwall Alliance:
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/articles/read/an-evangelical-declaration-on-global-warming/
He also doesn't appear to believe in evolution:
"...after some months of analysis I finally became convinced that the theory of creation actually had a much better scientific basis than the theory of evolution, for the creation model was actually better able to explain the physical and biological complexity in the world"
http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.php
Roy Spencer and John Christy have both been proven wrong by other scientists:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/satellite-measurements-warming-troposphere.htm
on 22-09-2013 04:05 PM
Have they?.....better let NASA know about that......![]()
on 22-09-2013 04:06 PM
odd indeed , believing in something that may not exist and denying something staring you in the face.
on 22-09-2013 04:06 PM
Alarmists websites are full of interesting information.......not.....![]()
on 22-09-2013 04:06 PM
LL the climate has always been changeable , fires have always happened, floods have always happened and drought has always happened. not amount of tax will change that fact.
There has been a hypothesis that carbon dioxide may have an effect on global temperature but no conclusive proof.
Attempts have been made to reduce the global CO2 content but it continues to rise at the same rate.Throwing money into government coffers has not altered the rate of co2 one iota
on 22-09-2013 04:09 PM
@poddster wrote:LL the climate has always been changeable , fires have always happened, floods have always happened and drought has always happened. not amount of tax will change that fact.
There has been a hypothesis that carbon dioxide may have an effect on global temperature but no conclusive proof.
Attempts have been made to reduce the global CO2 content but it continues to rise at the same rate.Throwing money into government coffers has not altered the rate of co2 one iota
dont waste your breath (or maybe fingers) i'd be a fool to listen to a unqualified opinion. like so many are.
on 22-09-2013 04:11 PM
True Poddster....Bushfires are not new....
Chronology of Major Bush Fires and the death toll incurred in N.S.W.
Sorry though...it only contains one hundred years of history...
http://home.iprimus.com.au/foo7/firesnsw.html
or http://home.iprimus.com.au/foo7/firesqul.html
Hardly a new thing...
on 22-09-2013 04:13 PM
Fabulous post by the way Poddster......now watch the Alarmists squirm.....
![]()
22-09-2013 04:16 PM - edited 22-09-2013 04:18 PM
Poddster wrote:Don't you find it odd, strange and weird that there has bee a carbon tax in one form or another and a supposed cutting down of man made carbon dioxide for the last 5 years at least yet the CO2 levels keep rising at the same rate tha they have risen for the last 15 years.
Poddster my post back there (see repost below) was in reply to the question of yours ^^^^
Podds, not really ...how much have things like industry and population increased in comparion to that rise ?
on 22-09-2013 04:30 PM
Seeing that the rate of CO2 production has not altered over the last 15 years as shown in that graph and CO2 reduction methods have been in force for at least the last 5 years without a rate change. are you saying that the carbon tax is compensating for industrial and population growth?
Wouldn't you think that industrial growth and population growth would follow the same trend as it did for the previous 10 years?