Discussion in 'Parramatta Eels' started by Gronk, Dec 5, 2015.
Well you can when you agree with it...................
interesting call HJ,
so from which other planet did we import all this extra water ?
but, but, all the fire commissioners said it was
Or at least claim it agrees with you, even if it really doesn't, and you read somewhere it does
Would you be referring to those former fire commissioners who are on the payroll of the Climate Council?
if they are, as you allege, why do you think they are on the council ?
I was just having a dig at my mate HJ who used that line on me in a previous discussion and now appears to be happy to use them to prove a point.
The Climate Council are a non-profit.
Yet you claim that they are bank rolling propganda with a Roosters like sombrero ?
Do tell. Where do you get that from ?
Which was pretty much the point I was making.
The other point was that they have made no such claim.
People who advocate for action on climate change are unreliable because of their connections to other people or institutions that advocate for action on climate change?
Are you claiming non profits don't pay people?
I read as planet heats up there is more rain. So worldwide there is more rain.
So no reason to blame the bushfires or drought on Global warming.
It also alters systems though. Theoretically at least. So some places may get more rain and some less.
The Sahara desert was created by a natural climate change for eg.
No, however @emjaycee is inferring that fire commissioners are motivated by money and that they would not have a voice without financial inducement.
I would like to see the evidence that the fire commissioners are making any money out of this other than travel and daily shelter food and water, when away from home.
How is being a non profit relevant to that point, then?
I'm not saying they do bankroll firies either, but being a non profit doesn't preclude the idea.
Well I am guessing that a non-profit like the Climate Council have different funding models to say, the Minerals Council of Australia. Happy to be proven wrong.
I think I missed one
The point is you don't need extra water for extra precipitation. You just need a bit more in the air and a bit less in the sea.
Anyone who use uses the amount of global precipitation as (part) evidence of the non-existence of climate change is only being cheeky with the facts.
The point is that climate change is altering weather patterns. This is nothing new. Science has been predicting this for decades.
Climate models predict that the addition of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere will shift precipitation in two main ways. The first shift is in a strengthening of existing precipitation patterns. This is commonly called "wet get wetter, dry get drier."
Warmer air traps more water vapor, and scientists expect that additional water to fall in already wet parts of the Earth.
"But because precipitation has to be balanced by evaporation, we expect a [corresponding] increase in dry regions," Marvel said.
Isn't the argument about whether or not humans are responsible for climate change, and if so how much?
Some people deny it's happening at all, some say it's entirely natural, some say it's 100% human activity.
In reality it's likely yo be a combination of the latter two.
Separate names with a comma.