Beliefs on climate like religion, court rules

 

A United Kingdom court has ruled that a man can take his employer to court on the grounds that he was discriminated against because of his views on climate change.

Tim Nicholson was made redundant last year as head of sustainability for a property company Grainger Plc, the UK's biggest residential landlord.

Mr Nicholson successfully argued that his moral values about the environment should be recognised under the same laws that protect religious beliefs.

In the landmark ruling, Justice Michael Burton said that a belief in man-made climate change is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of the religion and belief regulations.

------------------------

In a few years time, belief in global warming will be as solid knowledge as the earth was proven round, not flat... It took time and recant from Galileo re the movement of the earth, but time...  in regard to global warming, we're running out of it... And global warming will have more impact than discovering our pebble is not the centre of the universe...

One of the oldest tide gauge benchmarks in the world is at Port Arthur in south-east Tasmania. When combined with historical tide gauge data (found in the London and Australian archives) and recent sea level observations, it shows that relative sea level has risen by 13.5 cm from 1841 to 2000. [note: 13.5 cm is about 5.4 inches]

The recent expansion of water-logged pannes (potholes) in salt marshes throughout the northeastern U.S. is attributed to increased tidal flooding associated with accelerated rates of sea-level rise. In fact, the significant expansion and coalescing of pannes has been invoked as a mechanism leading to extensive salt marsh loss in some areas. However, very little work has examined the long-term evolution of pannes.

-------------------

Gus: Obviously, reading some of the adoring thoughtful comments posted on janet's opinionated piece, many people believe she knows what she's talking about... They fail to check her obvious porkies — all more interested in bagging the greens and the serious scientists, while sipping champers from the air-conditioned deck of their flat-earth theory masions with 360 degrees views... But some of the comments appear to come from the poorest sods who seem to believe she's god delivering the gospel — because she must be, for being who she is, throwing disdainous crumbs from an altitude only gods of the crapper can be...

Delivering ideas with elegant composure, authority and verve is the art form of spruikers, artful dodgers and some cartoonists...

The artful dodgers plunder your brains and take you walkies on a sarcastic leash... all while sounding plausible...

Spruikers take your wallet while you're not looking — or make you buy something you don't need and will never use for a price ten times the value.

Cartoonists are closer to the truth, less sarcastic and more satirical. We make sure of that. And I'd say there is no money nor glory in it — because we take no bribes and know too much.

You certainly have a way with you Gus.

 

Gus: here in her "facticious" column, the other queen of dis-mis-information (Miranda is still "numera una") pushes several barrows of slop pumped from a blocked dunny, in a rainstorm after a cluster of diarrhoea...

 

That my friend is what I call true “occa”.

 

However, like all people who cannot genuinely debate, the two lasses about which we speak may simply say that we are male chauvinistic pigs?

 

The typical defense from one who is bereft of real “common dog…k” as we called it in the old R.A.N.

 

But I certainly appreciate the principles of you and John in genuinely giving two sides to the stories.

 

I like that very much.

 

Cheers mate.  God bless Australia. NE OUBLIE.  

 

Thanks for your appreciation, Ernest...

I can't help myself with the visions...

But in regard to some people, I believe that although they are entitled to their opinions, those who are in position of power, such as people sitting on the board of the ABC and demanding "balance" from the national broadcaster's journalists, should AT LEAST exercise the same silly balance they insist upon in their public ablutions.

I am a very understanding person but can be inflexible on some important issues — and become an uncompromising bastard in some of my view points.

All this because I do not want to sell half my soul to the devil in the name of "balance"...

On many issues, a compromise or a "balanced" view point means that the truth gets 40 percent of the airing, the porkies get 40 percent as well.. and uncertainty gets 20 percent... Uncertainty and porkies make excellent bedfellows and the truth never comes out...

In some system, the relative truth in a relative environment can become absolute — in relation to this environment. In most systems if the tooted porkies are prettier and less painful than truth, they will win till the system vanishes by careless accidental death. But if the porkies are tainted with uncertainty and fear, they will win, but the system will fight to survive. Meanwhile, as we try hard to reduce our personal footprint, porkies will turn up incessantly with bigger and bigger clown shoes...

Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has upped the pressure on the Opposition over its emissions trading stance, accusing it of being full of climate change deniers intent on delaying action.

In a speech to the Lowy Institute today Mr Rudd launched a strongly worded attack on the Opposition and climate change sceptics worldwide for holding up countries' efforts to combat climate change.

"It is time to be totally blunt about the agenda of the climate change sceptics in all their colours, some more sophisticated than others," he said.

"It is to destroy the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme at home and it is to destroy agreed global action on climate change abroad.

"And our children's fate - our grandchildren's fate - will lie entirely with them. It is time to remove any polite veneer from this debate; the stakes are that high.

There is very few of your opinions with which I do not agree Gus - and that's a fact.

However, when I become aware of what I believe is a massive injustice - whether it is personal, local or international I feel that it is those who genuinely want equality for all people that should argue against the such politics.

If we were, you and I, to take the Hebrew race, religion and history out of our debate, I cannot imagine one disagreement.  Mind you Gus, agreeing with me is no recommendation.

We discussed you and me, about the disgraceful treatment of the Kooris of Australia and that is certainly a blot on our past but, only if we believe in the rights of the original owners of, for example Tasmanians – then how can we restore to life the many nomads which our British forebears saw fit to murder?

How does this juxtapose with our disagreement on a new Israel?

IMHO so many times the rights of a race or religion of a people can be distorted by the events of time and those rights are only what they can defend.  How civilized are we?

Supposing that the time factor and the so-called “progress” from Huns to Romans has long gone with the technology of more “peaceful means” - why are we going back to the bestial attitude of the Huns of those days?  Who were, after all, only defending their territory?

This has become a small world – more people are educated (which can be a disadvantage because they can read) and I think that the success of the Zionists will be as big a disgrace to humanity as was their tormentor.

The whole concept is diametrically opposed to decency and common sense.

But, without an atomic bomb, we tell the other Semites – you have no rights.

Cheers mate.

God Bless Australia.  NE OUBLIE.  

 

 

 

The Greenland ice sheet is losing its mass faster than in previous years and making an increasing contribution to sea level rise, a study has confirmed.

Published in the journal Science, it has also given scientists a clearer view of why the sheet is shrinking.

The team used weather data, satellite readings and models of ice sheet behaviour to analyse the annual loss of 273 thousand million tonnes of ice.

Melting of the entire sheet would raise sea levels globally by about 7m (20ft).

---------------------

see toon at top and read the article below it.. and of course go to the recently added entertainingly ludicrous...

ScienceDaily (Nov. 13, 2009) — Spurred by a warming climate, daily record high temperatures occurred twice as often as record lows over the last decade across the continental United States, new research shows. The ratio of record highs to lows is likely to increase dramatically in coming decades if emissions of greenhouse gases continue to climb.

A new report has warned that up to 250,000 homes around Australia will be inundated due to climate change by the turn of the century.

The Federal Government report titled Climate Risks to Australia is the most comprehensive assessment to date, taking into account a projected 1.1-metre rise in sea level and an increasing risk of extreme weather events like tidal and storm surges.

-------------------

see toon and stories above... Alarmist? I hope so...

"The sea water now comes right into our houses. We would all like to move, but there is nowhere to go," said Geeta Das, a teacher in Bolihut village, near Chittagong. Her home has been partly washed away and her bed is now just a foot from where the waters reached a few weeks ago. "We panic when it is cloudy and it is about to rain. We fear we will lose our children."

A neighbour, Madhuri Das, said: "We do not need scientists or anyone to tell us things are changing. We know the sea level is rising. We have always lived here. The floods are more frequent and we now fear the sea. Ten years ago, the sea water never came to the village. We cannot afford to raise our houses except on mud, which gets washed away. We can't use the toilets, and diseases are now more common. Our water is no longer sweet."

-----------------

Go live where it hurts, Janet... Global warming is real despite your air conditioned space and your golden bathtub... See article at top and toon above it. My personal view is that we're on the way to a torrid temperature increase of between 9 and 14 degrees C by 2100. I might be out by 3 to 4 degrees C, in the wrong direction. Think of 17 degrees C by 2100.

This is some of what Janet wrote during the Copenhagen summit... See at top....

Fact number 1: During the past 2000 years, sea levels have fluctuated with 5 peaks reaching 0.6m to 1.2m above present sea level. Fact number 2: From 1790 to 1970 sea levels were about 20cm higher than today. Fact number 3: In the 1970s, the sea level fell by about 20cm to its present level. Fact number 4: Sea levels have remained constant for the past 30 years “implying that there are no traces of any alarming ongoing sea level rise”. Fact number 5 (and I am paraphrasing here): The notion presented by the President of the Maldives that his country will be flooded is bunkum.

--------------------------------------------------

This is the reality:

Off Sydney, the rise has been much more moderate, at an average of just 1.8 millimetres a year - not noticeable to unaided observation. However, the report notes, even tiny amounts of sea-level rise can have a big impact on king tides, storm surges and flooding.

''The observed sea-level rise of about 20 centimetres from 1880 to 2000 should already have led to an increase in the incidence of extreme sea-level events,'' the report said.

The Climate Change Department says a moderate sea-level rise this century will cost $63 billion in terms of changes to infrastructure and housing locations.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/sealevel-rise-to-hit-sydney-worst-warns-climate-report-20110522-1ez0x.html#ixzz1NAmjVI9J

 

Say the lady is a denialist idiot like a few others, namely Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt and Prue MacSween...

---------------------

from Stephen Luntz — a science journalist, writing primarily for Australasian Science Magazine.

The longer Jones and Bolt refuse to admit they’ve been wrong, the more embarrassing the backdown becomes. Is it any wonder they’re angry?

Instead what we see is a process where, every few months, a claim comes out supposedly finding a flaw in climate science. Occasionally the claim is actually published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal. More often it is something made up by an internet blowhard, or a misrepresentation of genuine research that actually strengthens the evidence for human-induced warming.

In either case, the same thing happens. The claim ricochets around the denial-o-sphere, repeated ad nauseum in blogs, books and the Murdoch-owned media (and often enough other media outlets that should know better). Within days the claim is shown to be based on misrepresentations of data, tiny sample sizes or straightforward arithmetical errors. It largely disappears from view, resurfacing occasionally in comments from trolls on blog posts. In the rare cases that one of these articles appears robust enough for the right to hold onto it, things eventually turn even more embarrassing, such as the recent withdrawal of the Said et al paper that turned out to have been plagiarised.

Professor John Quiggin has compared this process to Peanuts cartoons with Lucy endlessly convincing Charlie Brown that this time it will be different, this time he really will get to kick the football. Tim Lambert’s blog Deltoid provides a depressingly long store of examples.

The response has been to allege, or at least imply, a conspiracy. That might work when the perpetrators are just your political opponents. It’s a bit harder to maintain when the conspirators apparently include every single major scientific association (including even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists), virtually every living Noble Prize winner, conservative politicians like David Cameron and Angela Merkle and even The Pope.

Although the denialists almost never admit to their mistakes, it’s hard to imagine there is not a grinding psychological effect from this process. When you’ve been wrong hundreds of times before it takes a lot of energy to muster the conviction (or appearance of conviction) that this time you’re really nailed it. This cognitive dissonance can come out in relatively harmless ways, such when the Herald Sun accuses Bob Brown of “ruining the nation” for correcting factual errors in The Australia. Less benignly it comes out in the rising torrent of death threats reported by climate scientists.

It’s not clear how this is going to end. The threats and abuse may cause some scientists to keep their heads down in the mainstream media, but they won’t stop publishing their data. The “papers that disprove global warming” will become more and more unhinged from reality.

Having missed the chance to change direction and endorse the approach to climate change adopted by the UK Conservatives it seems unlikely the Coalition or their cheer squad will find a way to back off their positions.

It looks like there will be a lot more hate speech to come.

--------------------

Gus: they're all idiots, dangerous idiots and so is Uncle Rupe who is more interested in making money rather than understanding the true mechanics of this little planet...

meanwhile at the real cost of things:

--------------------

A City Prepares for a Warm Long-Term Forecast By LESLIE KAUFMAN

CHICAGO — The Windy City is preparing for a heat wave — a permanent one.

Climate scientists have told city planners that based on current trends, Chicago will feel more like Baton Rouge than a Northern metropolis before the end of this century.

So, Chicago is getting ready for a wetter, steamier future. Public alleyways are being repaved with materials that are permeable to water. The white oak, the state tree of Illinois, has been banned from city planting lists, and swamp oaks and sweet gum trees from the South have been given new priority. Thermal radar is being used to map the city’s hottest spots, which are then targets for pavement removal and the addition of vegetation to roofs. And air-conditioners are being considered for all 750 public schools, which until now have been heated but rarely cooled.

“Cities adapt or they go away,” said Aaron N. Durnbaugh, deputy commissioner of Chicago’s Department of Environment. “Climate change is happening in both real and dramatic ways, but also in slow, pervasive ways. We can handle it, but we do need to acknowledge it. We are on a 50-year cycle, but we need to get going.”

Across America and in Congress, the very existence of climate change continues to be challenged — especially by conservatives. The skeptics are supported by constituents wary of science and concerned about the economic impacts of stronger regulation. Yet even as the debate rages on, city and state planners are beginning to prepare.

The precise consequences of the increase of man-made greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are hard to determine, but scientists are predicting significant sea level rise; more extreme weather events like storms, tornadoes and blizzards; and, of course, much more heat. New York City, which is doing its own adaptation planning, is worried about flooding from the rising ocean. The Navy has a task force on climate change that says it should be preparing to police the equivalent of an extra sea as the Arctic ice melts.

Some of these events will occur in the near-enough term that local governments are under pressure to act. Insurance companies are applying pressure in high-risk areas, essentially saying adapt or pay higher premiums — especially in urban and commercial areas.

The reinsurance giant Swiss Re, for example, has said that if the shore communities of four Gulf Coast states choose not to implement adaptation strategies, they could see annual climate-change related damages jump 65 percent a year to $23 billion by 2030.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/23/science/earth/23adaptation.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=print

 

This being said in ONE OF (IF NOT THE WORST) the worst year for tornadoes in the US and possible during a giant big near sudden melt of snow in some part of the US... Not to mention the Mississippi river running amok...

 

 

Leading Australian scientists have firmed their view on the rate of sea-level rise, in the latest snapshot of this climate change problem.Over the past 50 years, the global average rise of 1.9 millimetres a year measured in tide gauges has been confirmed in satellite measurements, raising confidence in predictions.

"We are very close to the final answer on this," said oceanographer John Hunter, of the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-operative Research Centre in Hobart. "Once we do that we can do our modelling for the future much better."

In the ACECRC's Report Card: Sea Level Rise 2012 released today, a dramatic short-term rise was identified north of Australia, where waters rose at around 10mm each year over the past 18 years.

But Dr Hunter cautioned that this was likely to relate to El Nino events, rather than long term sea-level trends.

He said the Australian coasts faced a rise of about the global average rate through the 21st century - meaning sea level would be around 0.38 metres higher in 2090 than it was 100 years earlier.

Thermal expansion - the greater space occupied by hotter sea water - has contributed about 45 per cent of the total rise since 1972, according to the report card.

Melting glaciers and ice caps added another 40 per cent, with most of the remainder coming from ice sheets.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/sharp-rise-in-sea-levels-to-australias-north-report-20120703-21e6n.html#ixzz1zWgz8WhK

This flies in the face of Janet Abrechtsen as one can read in the comments above this one:
A) Janet is an idiot.
B) Tony Abbott is an idiot
C) Alan Jones is an Idiot (with a capital i)
D) There are plenty more to add to this list of powerful idiots, unfortunately...