# Poll on Action on Global Warming



## 2020hindsight (17 December 2008)

It's been a bit over a year since we had a poll on GW.  
I was wondering if people's attitudes have changed. 

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9058

a) there is no reliable evidence that indicates global warming (GW) 

b) there is GW, but the manmade contribution is UNPROVEN (brd),- and we should ignore it

c) there is GW, the manmade contribution is PROVEN (brd), but the matter is not urgent – ignore it

d) whether AGW or even GW is proven or not - we should act to reduce greenhouse gas effects anyway – starting with a 5% commitment now, increasing to 15% when USA, China and India come on board 

e) ditto but with significantly higher cuts to CO2e output. 

f) other (plus reasons)


Another way to ask this I guess is (adapted from previous poll)  :-

a) are you where Johnny Howard was 4months before the election? 
b) are you where Johnny Howard was 3 months before the election? 
c) are you where Johnny Howard was 2 months before the election? 
d) are you where Johnny Howard was 1 months before the election? 

and/or  (working backwards) … 
d) are you where Kevin Rudd is now?
e) are you where Kevin Rudd was 12 months ago ?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (17 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> It's been a bit over a year since we had a poll on GW.
> I was wondering if people's attitudes have changed.
> 
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9058
> ...




Its weather mate, you are getting hammered by science.

Don't do a Kev and have another bloody inquiry.

Back to the Weather thread.

gg


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 December 2008)

gg
I think it's fair to say that the talk of recession has had an effect - on everyone (ASF members, pollies, the works).  It's had a significant effect on the drafts of Garnaut's reports as well. 

Just curious if people's vote has changed. 

Poll closes in 6 weeks btw. (about end Jan) 



Garpal Gumnut said:


> ... getting hammered by science.



lol - well one of us is thats for sure . 
 And I don't recall a single scientific comment you've made lol


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 December 2008)

btw, options  d) and e)  (= Action and ACTION!! respectively ) differ slightly from the previous poll - pooling all those who want action *whether or not *every "t" in the science is crossed or not. - i.e. maybe it's just the wise cautious option in your opinion


----------



## Panacea (17 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> d) whether AGW or even GW is proven or not - we should act to reduce greenhouse gas effects anyway – starting with a 5% commitment now, increasing to 15% when USA, China and India come on board




This is, to me, the most reasonable position to take.

My attitude hasn't changed significantly. I would have preferred bigger targets, but I don't think Kevin Rudd had any option other than to announce the numbers he did. Anything higher would have been seen as economically irresponsible (given current circumstances), while anything lower would have been seen as a doing nothing. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.


----------



## So_Cynical (17 December 2008)

f ) I'm where Kevin Rudd will be 3 months before the next election.


----------



## wayneL (17 December 2008)

Wrong questions.


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 December 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Its weather mate, you are getting hammered by science.
> Don't do a Kev and have another bloody inquiry.
> Back to the Weather thread. gg



sounds like, reading a couple of these answers, I should have had another option ..

"I don't understand the question"  



			
				wayne said:
			
		

> Wrong questions



see wayne this is the problem I have with your raft of answers on this one ...

there's one question not several. 
"ignore GW? - 
or not"

PS I preferred your reply #22 to the previous poll on this.


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 December 2008)

So_Cynical said:


> f ) I'm where Kevin Rudd will be 3 months before the next election.



interesting answer 
might need a Danish crystal ball for that one.

Or the bigger questionmark - where will the Libs be on this 3 months before the next election? 

To be fair, Labor and Libs have almost identical policies at the moment yes? (as much as you can second guess the Libs these days) - or more accurately - that has obviously been Kevin Rudd's plan - to give Malcolm Turnbull no leeway if he still wants to maintain some cred.


----------



## wayneL (18 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> see wayne this is the problem I have with your raft of answers on this one ...
> 
> there's one question not several.
> "ignore GW? -
> ...



This is the very least of your "problems", but I digress; it is the wrong question on several fronts.


Is there GW?
Is it anthropogenic?
If so, to what extent?
If so can we respond?
If so should we respond?
If so how should we respond?
Is it natural? (solar cycles etc or whatever combination of other factors)
If so can we respond?
If so should we respond?
If so how should we respond?
If GW is A, and we can respond, how urgent is it?
Are there other environmental problems that should take priority?
Should we consider all science on any of these matters, or should we ignore science that contradicts the prevailing dogma?
Should we ignore junk science?
Should we prosecute promulgators of junk science as fact?
Should Al Bore give his fraudulently obtained Nobel prize back?
Should climate scientists declare their pecuniary interests? (Oh that would be a can of worms LOL)
Are we moving into a cooling cycle?
Is a new Ice Age possible?
Is it anthropogenic?
If so, to what extent?
If so can we respond?
If so should we respond?
If so how should we respond?
Is it natural? (solar cycles etc or whatever combination of other factors)
If so can we respond?
If so should we respond?
If so how should we respond?
If cooling is anthropogenic, and we can respond, how urgent is it?
Are there other environmental problems that should take priority?
Should we consider all science on any of these matters, or should we ignore science that contradicts the prevailing dogma?
etc + a million pertinent questions I haven't thought of.


----------



## GumbyLearner (18 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> This is the very least of your "problems", but I digress; it is the wrong question on several fronts.
> 
> 
> Is there GW?
> ...




Just dont have SEX you might get fined!!!!!

:


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 December 2008)

btw, thinking aloud, and given man's ability to plan ahead, - how we vote next time probably depends on the weather at the time. 

- it could be that we have a La Nina (milder) weather pattern developing  at the moment - a brief reprieve for a year or two maybe - which would make it pretty controversial leading into the next election.  Unless people are sweating,  and /or dying of (local) drought, they don't seem to want to listen. 

Here's BOM on the latest state of El Niño / La Nina  (ENSO index) 

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/


> ENSO Wrap-Up
> A regular commentary on the El Niño-Southern Oscillation
> About El Niño & La NiÃ±a
> Product Code: IDCKGEWW00
> ...






> Next update expected by 23rd December 2008 (about two weeks after this update).



A La Nina for Xmas maybe? 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/05/el-nino-global-warming/


> El Niño events tend to recur every 3-8 years.
> 
> The last El Niño as of today was in 1997-98, and was the strongest or second strongest (after 1982-83, depending on what you look at) event observed in modern times. The Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) in Australia provides an Internet page on ENSO with a nice ENSO wrap-up for up-dated information.




an amusing comment, given that it's the festive season    :-


> As an aside, it's amusing to note that in some early papers, the opposite of El Niño was described as the 'anti-El Niño'   but given the religious connotations described above, this usage did not get a lot of support …


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> This is the very least of your "problems", but I digress; it is the wrong question on several fronts.
> 
> 
> Is there GW?
> ...



gee wayne , I'd hate to be on a battlefield with you beside me ..

do we attack ? 
 well let's think about that .... 

should we act? - knowing what we know ? - yes  or no. 

granted there are options given there for what action degree of cuts etc .
plus "other" if you insist.


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> a battlefield etc



btw, this is a battlefield in one sense ...
the lives of 
millions of critters and 
millions of humans 
are at risk.

...very real risk according to the vast majority of specialist scientists in this area. 

and you want to gamble with how long you can make your shopping list of questions to think about.

PS perhaps you're gonna have to reveal your credentials wayne.  That you can question them on whether we should act (at all ??) - with so much at stake.


----------



## wayneL (18 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> gee wayne , I'd hate to be on a battlefield with you beside me ..



Yer damn right, I'd shoot you in the back because you would cost us all our lives eventually. 



> do we attack ?
> well let's think about that ....
> 
> should we act? - knowing what we know ? - yes  or no.
> ...



You have to know the enemy... if there is an enemy. No sense attacking the wrong one and costing you the ability to attack the right one.

eg IRAQ


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 December 2008)

wayneL said:


> Yer damn right, I'd shoot you in the back because you would cost us all our lives eventually.



no wayne
 I'd be defending the worlds population - and its critters 

and you'd be running around in circles of ever decreasing radius lol


----------



## GumbyLearner (18 December 2008)

Now as a 20 year gromit ipso facto

Dont expect Asia to not want the Industrial Revolution that England and the USA had, but maybe we can show these fellas a thing or two where we went wrong....

www.youtube.com/watch?v=952F8OFlybc 

It's not BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## wayneL (18 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> no wayne
> I'd be defending the worlds population - and its critters
> 
> and you'd be running around in circles of ever decreasing radius lol



OK, we're back to kindergarten stuff. Time for me to check out and go and find an adult conversation somewhere.

Ciao


----------



## GumbyLearner (18 December 2008)

Now time to buy some PLI!


----------



## GumbyLearner (18 December 2008)

Maybe its all garbage!! This global warming garbage. 

You know what.." If the AIR gets too thick, try breathing money."

Now if that fails, why not listen to the THE FAUVES from Mornington Peninsula way. 

www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQASn7ijbZc


----------



## noirua (18 December 2008)

The poll seems to be exclusively an Aussie, from here, based philosophy.
I've had quite a lot of exchange of information with those at "Rising Tide", and of course their ideals are about 85% correct. The problem is money or/and what would replace coal and oil in the space of a few years - often they go quiet on this part of the discussion. 

In general coalminers see about 30 to 40 years remaining for coal as the major energy in power stations and furnaces. Increasingly nuclear power will take over and all the other energies, the whole rag tag and bobtail, will provide a relatively small part of that.

One day all power will come from the sun, but that's too far away to consider as a major component as yet.


----------



## GumbyLearner (18 December 2008)

Fair call noirua

There is no immediate solution.

But hopefully 'carbon capture' is not a theory.


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 December 2008)

perhaps another option ...

just do it ! - in the interests of anti-pollution, anti-waste of resources, anti-waste of the environment,  

pro forests,  pro habitat,  pro critters,  pro-oceans, coral etc ..... 

or if you prefer,  pro-awakening of man's understanding of the limitations of what this planet can sustain, population-wise and "development-wise" (= tar , cement and smokestacks?)   clean up of the rivers, oceans, better use of fertilisers,  more awareness of what we are doing , algael blooms in inland lakes in Austria for cryysake - certainly in the Nepean R in Sydney, where it's too poisonous to swim sometimes ... 

or if you prefer, pro-innovation in the cleaner industries, pro-opportunity for Aussie bussinesses (provided they get their act together sooner rather than later - you can bet your life that to insist on staying with "the old", will only mean that you're passed by "the new" - in the same way that California has taken our recent solar generation plant and run with it - because we were too much into protecting "old ways") 

... seize the momentum , join the world wide movement for a never again opportiunity to get some international cooperation and a new mindset.


----------



## GumbyLearner (19 December 2008)

Just curious 

Do you eat meat 2020?


----------



## wayneL (19 December 2008)

GumbyLearner said:


> Just curious
> 
> Do you eat meat 2020?




This will be interesting.


----------



## agro (19 December 2008)

I certainly think there is GW

even Summer is delayed and it feels like Winter in December!!


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 December 2008)

GumbyLearner said:


> Just curious
> 
> Do you eat meat 2020?



no m8, I only eat turnips grown in the tibetan highlands 

talk about obfuscation


----------



## GumbyLearner (19 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> no m8, I only eat turnips grown in the tibetan highlands
> 
> talk about obfuscation






Fair Enough 2020!

Just that you from your last post it sounded like you were into lentil burgers


----------



## Prospector (19 December 2008)

Global warming as a consequence of man's activities has become a new religion; it is impossible to sort the fact from the fiction.

Travelling to Tasmania over the weekend, I read that carbon released from bushfires is 3/4 of Tasmania's carbon output through industry.  Given that bushfires, volcanoes etc are naturally occurring phenomena, maybe nature 'expects' it to occur?  And that man's contribution is rather small.

Adelaide's annual temperature hasnt increased since the commencement of recording, so we should be excused from participating.

Global warming has also become the excuse for Governments to avoid the real reasons why the River Murray has been screwed - which is really overallocation upstream.


----------



## Green08 (19 December 2008)

I do agree more should be done to cut emissions yes Gobal Warming.

More so the air we are breathing is so polluted.  
Fish stocks are almost gone in many parts of the world.
Quality and access to basic water is diminishing whether through lack of facilities, over burdened resources, lack of rain.

Sydney is shocking. The number of asthmatic suffers is increasing and increasing at younger ages.  As are skin conditions.

I've found when in the country my asthma clearups in a few days.

It will be interesting to see if we slow down that the changes may slow down or be steady for a while. Though there are other problems out there underway which need immediate addressing - what happened to the issue of Sydney not having enough water in the next few years?  Haven't heard alot and with the credit crisis I doubt much will happen in the next year.  When they had access to money and time like typical pollies they bicker.  That is the way of most problems people are idle until it is an expensive difficult discussion.

Agree Prospector Part of the Murray Darling was siphened off and there has been less rain in the primary area too.


----------



## Calliope (19 December 2008)

Of course Mr Rudd opted for (d) while keeping his fingers crossed and hoping that that Copenhagen talks are a failure. A bet each way; save a little face with the warmers while trying to do no real damage to the economy.


----------



## Julia (19 December 2008)

Green08 said:


> I do agree more should be done to cut emissions yes Gobal Warming.
> 
> More so the air we are breathing is so polluted.



Maybe move away from a big city?
Clean air here where I'm living.




> Fish stocks are almost gone in many parts of the world.
> Quality and access to basic water is diminishing whether through lack of facilities, over burdened resources, lack of rain.



A basic factor, often ignored here in Qld at least, is the dumb encouragement by the government of increased population when the water and other infrastructure has not kept pace.


----------



## Green08 (19 December 2008)

Julia said:


> Maybe move away from a big city?
> Clean air here where I'm living.QUOTE]
> 
> I have moved though I come back to see my partner.
> ...


----------



## Green08 (19 December 2008)

Lets do some basic maths.....

There are fewer trees in the world every year.  Any one that challenges that is nuts.

Increased poplulation let alone cars, electrical stations, fires, chimneys, have a increased Carbon emissions at an increased rate especially over th past 10 years.  All humans expell carbon dioxide on each breath out.  6.8 billion minmium breathing each second.

Sorry but trees are the largest organ on earth turning carbon into oxygen.

Unless there are unlimited oxygen tanks in the future for each human the quality of oxygen is diminished.

You have a global problem.  Whether you believe in global warming is actually besides the point.  There is less vegetation on this earth period.

I wonder if any one has done a sciencific study on the quality of oxygen in the next 20 or 50 years??   

I have children and care about their health and future.


----------



## Wysiwyg (19 December 2008)

We as a race have the ability to

1) cap population numbers
2) replenish food sources
3) use renewable energy sources
4) replenish forests
5) recycle/reuse everything man-made
6) use fresh water sparingly
7) keep the lands and waterways clean

the reasons we don`t and won`t

1) different groups have different ideologies 
2) all wired to consume relentlessly
3) all wired with choice -- care versus don`t care


----------



## Green08 (19 December 2008)

> We as a race have the ability to
> 
> 1) cap population numbers
> 2) replenish food sources
> ...





mmmmmm some plausible answers / questions?

1) Mandatory condoms or the V or tie after 1 or 2 perhaps? 
2) Jesus is around with a fish basket just have to find him.  Doesn’t have a share in this institution so should be a good bet he won't collapse.
3) Who is renewing enough?
4) Love the idea could you persuade the rest of the global to join in and guarantee perfect weather conditions for premium growth?
5)Yes I do try not sure about the rest of the global population
6) This could be your hardest.  Showers medium warm at 3 mins good luck with teenagers
7) Which planet are you on? I'm all for this anyone care to join in and stop those noxious ignorant people dumping chemicals and waste.

1) True, Each to their own. May depend on if you have children, grandchildren, just want to make money and burn around in cars, lots of sex -takes energy to transform rubber into condoms etc, energy to drill the oil to make petrol for the car to get the doctor to hospital to assess you etc. Care about animals, the future, your meal in 2 years time.
2) How you consume is an individual practice. Guilt is an individual emotion.
3) Agree fully, those that care and don't care.  Those that know and care but can't do much due to their surrounding lack of facilities or fully understanding. Does that care and try to teach others but are limited by the flip of paper - money to actually make a noticeable change.  Does that can't process a world beyond their next hit for pure self-indulgence reasons
.


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 December 2008)

If anyone's interested in the "vehemence" in discussions between WayneL and I on this stuff ...  I'd probably say it goes back to this BBC Channel 4 show... The Great Global Warming Swindle (by Martin Durkin) 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

If anyone’s interested, I started off quite impressed by that show.  

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=135445&highlight=fatalistic#post135445
refer post #14 


			
				2020 said:
			
		

> Wayne - finally found time to listen to it all. Have to say I owe you a massive apology. Fantastic.   In my defence as to my initial reaction ... it starts with what I consider to be a spindoctored twisted logic




However by post #16 on that thread I was getting real suspicious – when I discovered the NASA graph was nothing like what Durkins had quoted it to be etc 

by post #109, I’d identified a number of "problems"  
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=179638&highlight=durkin#post179638

ANYWAY, the first step in the sequence if anyone is interested in the arguments for and against that program (and if they haven't already seen it) is to watch that show, "The Great Global Warming Swindle" :-



> The Great Global Warming Swindle (in 8 parts)
> 
> http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=ONv3JSbiOag part 1 of 8   10m
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 December 2008)

Then came the ABC's program with discussion by panel of experts :-
Great Global Warming Swindle ABC Debates (in 9 parts)



> http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=GeQfD2DNnUQ  part 1 of 9 – 1m45s
> 
> http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=F25gZvmMJJM part 2 – 10m
> 
> ...




In the end, I became of the opinion that the Great Global Warming Swindle was indeed a swindle in itself.   And in any case the wise thing to do imo was / is to act on this.   And the more I’ve read since, the more sure I am on that score.


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 December 2008)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle


> The film's original working title was "Apocalypse my ****",[4] but the title The Great Global Warming Swindle was later adopted






> The UK's Channel 4 premiered the documentary on 8 March 2007. The channel described the film as "a polemic that drew together the well-documented views of a number of respected scientists to reach the same conclusions. This is a controversial film but we feel that it is important that all sides of the debate are aired."[5] According to Hamish Mykura, Channel 4's head of documentaries, the film was commissioned "to present the viewpoint of the small minority of scientists who do not believe global warming is caused by anthropogenic production of carbon dioxide."[6]
> 
> Although the documentary was welcomed by global warming sceptics, it was criticised heavily by many scientific organisations and individual scientists (including two of the film's contributors[7][8]). The film's critics argued that it had misused and fabricated data, relied on out-of-date research, employed misleading arguments, and misrepresented the position of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[9][10][11][12]
> 
> Channel 4 and Wag TV (the production company) accepted some of the criticism, correcting a few errors in subsequent releases.[13] However according to Bob Ward (former spokesman for the Royal Society), this still left five out of seven of the errors and misleading arguments which had been previously attacked by him and 36 other scientists in an open letter.[11]






> Carl Wunsch
> Carl Wunsch, professor of Physical Oceanography at MIT, is featured in the Channel 4 version of the programme. Afterwards he said that he was "completely misrepresented" in the film and had been "totally misled" when he agreed to be interviewed.[33][7] He called the film "grossly distorted" and "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two."[34] Wunsch was reported to have threatened legal action[34] and lodged a complaint with Ofcom. He also raised objections as to how his interview material was used:
> ....
> Although Wunsch has admitted that he finds the statements at both extremes of the global change debate distasteful [7] he wrote in a letter dated March 15, 2007 that he believes climate change is "real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component".


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 December 2008)

Might add this one here.  
"Andrew Bolt is still stuck in stage one of the denial game". 
Although written in 2005, I'd say that it's still the case.  - but who knows, he changes his mind all the time.  . 
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/here-are-the-facts-bolt/2005/10/07/1128562994584.html

The scientist versus the columnist: 
Tim Flannery says Andrew Bolt is in denial about climate change


> Here are the facts, Bolt
> October 8, 2005
> 
> In the lastest salvo in the climate change debate, scientist Tim Flannery says the *"errors" Andrew Bolt discovered in his book are, in fact, howlers on the columnist's part.*
> ...




the four stages of denial :-


> British environmenalist George Monbiot has documented the four stages of denial experienced by the climate change nay-sayers.
> 
> 1. First they said that climate change didn't exist.
> 2. Then that it wasn't caused by human activity.
> ...


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 December 2008)

Prospector said:


> Travelling to Tasmania over the weekend, I read that carbon released from bushfires is 3/4 of Tasmania's carbon output through industry.



Total Tasmanian greenhouse gas emissions resulting from human activity are in fact negative (according to ABS data).

Somewhat ironically, these negative emissions are a direct consequence of the two things mainstream environmentalists hate most and have spent the past four decades trying to stop. They also happen to be the two most well known industries in the state. Forestry and the Hydro.

The figures are a few years old, but here they are (source ABS).

Energy: 3.7 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent*

Industrial processes (non-energy related emissions): 0.7 MT

Agriculture: 2.3 MT

Forestry: -11.0 MT**

Waste: 0.4 MT

Total: -3.8 MT

*The energy figure would be about 14.3 MT if not for all those dams that environmentalists seem to hate. 

**Environmentalists also don't like forestry and would have you believe that the last tree is about to be cut. Fact is 40% of the entire state is protected and the negative emissions are a consequence of _increasing_ numbers of trees.

So, if environmentalists had their way then Tasmanian greenhouse gas emissions would be about +17.7 MT rather than -3.8 MT. They might have saved a river and they might be trying to save a few trees, but they ain't doing much good for the climate. 

That is and will always be the problem I have with the greens - they say the climate is a priority above all else but then oppose the very things that actually do some good.


----------



## Prospector (20 December 2008)

Hey Smurf, I was thinking of you when we were in Tasmania!  

I know you mentioned it is dry, but I was surprised to see how dry it was.  And that Lake you talk about - is that in the midlands area?  We did bring the rain though last Friday!  Adelaide is dry, Melbourne though, is even drier, well up until last Friday.

I reckon we saw more dead wildlife along the road than anywhere else, including Kangaroo Island, which we call 'dead kangaroo island' because of all the road kill.  Even saw a huge wombat upside down (dead) in the middle of the road - heaven help any car that hit that one during the night.

Gosh Tasmania is beautiful though!


----------



## Green08 (20 December 2008)

Hi 2020

I have watched the series of The Great Global Warming Swindle as you mentioned and put links in for - Thank you.  As this is a thread you began and my understanding is that you and Wayne are arguing if Climate Change is real, I can only offer my opinion after viewing.

I have more questions now than before. This is not a short answer.

In fact, my answers would mostly in themselves be questions, however, we can all only ever answer with our limited wisdom at that time.   With the knowledge taken in up to that point, our own morality, psychological nature, instinct, beliefs

My first question is to you or Wayne.

Do you believe what you see and is what you saw 'real' (acceptable for you) or is what you saw what someone else would like you to come to a conclusion on?
(I ask my daughter this all the time - you don't achieve much housework!)

So my conclusion, which will take time to research my way for me, may not gel with either of you or one of you now, future or ever.

What does stand out is, at this moment in time we have a population increasing beyond what our resources can comfortably accommodate.

Tectonic plates have and will move. Species develop and become extinct.  If we knew the outcome of all this why do most humans with money live by the sea? Isn't it bad effort for to have lost money due to lack of foresight contidicting your expectation, whenever?

If we were to all live life like those impovished with no electricty, fridge, health access etc would the world at 6.8 billion be a better place?  With no knowledge impaired as? (as we look at them in the media conveyed to us now)?

Is electricity really cheaper than wood Episode 8?  From the time you pay someone to draft plans, submit,  the origins of ore to make a metal to make a mechanical piece, labour setting up infrastructure, monitoring, fixing things up as they break or wear out.....(the list goes on)? or Getting seeds, incubating them, growth , replanting, weed elimination, harvesting.

Depending on what YOU WANT, how you obtain it, where it came from, how it arrived in your possession, how you use it, what you do after you use it, how you dispose of it, and how it is assimilated back into the environment.  Can lead to many outcomes.  If you care, what do you care about and for how long, are you doing anything about it.

Is a particular lifestyle any healthier, sustainable, cheaper in some respects, acceptable behaviour for you, others or who you are trying to influence for money, support, marketing etc?

I live my life and raise my children relatively 'eco' as I don't like to depend on others for whatever reason (whilst I can) for 1/2 my energy needs and at this stage 1/2 my food, water is plentiful currently - money saving is debatable until items pay themselves off.  I am aware they need a healthy lifestyle (or what that means to me). They have inoculations (R & D money, transport, mkting) go to the dentist, have an education I deem quality with additional extras.  What they decide to do when they leave me is their choice. I make all efforts geared for their safety and wellbeing (each parent has their own way and circumstances).

The future is in our hands then theirs, as each generation grows so to will the issues that challenge their survival and methods to cope.

Survival for each person at anytime anywhere will be different.

One thing - have a look at the body language by each speaker. in the doc and evaluation.

Basically humans take in information comfortable and resist opposing infomation.  The only thing I know is that the world has never had to sustain this population under these conditions - anything is possible.


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 December 2008)

Prospector said:


> Hey Smurf, I was thinking of you when we were in Tasmania!
> 
> I know you mentioned it is dry, but I was surprised to see how dry it was.  And that Lake you talk about - is that in the midlands area?  We did bring the rain though last Friday!  Adelaide is dry, Melbourne though, is even drier, well up until last Friday.
> 
> ...



I did the Adelaide - Melbourne - Hobart trip about 6 weeks ago. Melbourne sure is dry. You'd be amazed how dry it was 3 months ago in Tas - we've had a LOT of rain since then and it's looking a lot better than it did before that. 

If you flew over a big lake that's nowhere near full in the central highlands then that would be Great Lake, a natural lake enlarged by various dams and diversions that sits near the geographic centre of Tas. 

As for the animals, that's a huge problem that always shocks visitors. I've got an assortment of wallabies over the back fence and two months ago I found a potteroo running around the kitchen. I'm 8km from the city centre.


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 December 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Then came the ABC's program with discussion by panel of experts :-
> Great Global Warming Swindle ABC Debates (in 9 parts)



Apologies , I posted the wrong link for part 3 of 9 .  Corrected list follows :-

If you watch none of the others, at least watch this one.  A complete conman - trying to squirm his way out of these blatant untruths.  Sorry mate, the plum in your mouth doesn't cover up your lack of cred on this occasion  

PS Tony Jones should have been a barrister 

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=Ovluo-FdIp4 part 3 – 10m 
embedded :-
  part 3 – 10m 






> http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=GeQfD2DNnUQ part 1 of 9 – 1m45s
> 
> http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=F25gZvmMJJM part 2 – 10m
> 
> ...


----------



## Green08 (20 December 2008)

Now the solar activity is very interesting.

It has been rather quite on the sun lately. Do you expect alot of activity in flares and events we can measure suddenly?

If so how would you translate this in temperature, the moon gravity pulls?

I do believe all is interconnected with the sun and there will be sudden activity, not sure how this will effect earth though it will be noticeable.


----------



## Wysiwyg (20 December 2008)

Green08 said:


> Now the solar activity is very interesting.
> 
> It has been rather quite on the sun lately. Do you expect alot of activity in flares and events we can measure suddenly?
> 
> ...





You are right and the forecast is ...



> A solar wind stream flowing from the indicated coronal hole should reach Earth on or about Dec. 22nd


----------



## Green08 (20 December 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> You are right and the forecast is ...dec 22nd





Well don't just stop there!  Now we are moving ahead.  

I have to say the poor earth must feel like a flea ridden dog that's be itching for ages to shake the irritation off!!

Which site do you obtain your solar information from.  There are many.  I love watching the sun in motion it is beautiful.


----------



## wayneL (20 December 2008)

Green08 said:


> My first question is to you or Wayne.
> 
> Do you believe what you see and is what you saw 'real' (acceptable for you) or is what you saw what someone else would like you to come to a conclusion on?
> (I ask my daughter this all the time - you don't achieve much housework!)



Very good question Green which I'd like to answer. But if I may do so at some later time... when I have more time.

Stay tuned.

Cheers


----------



## Wysiwyg (20 December 2008)

Green08 said:


> Which site do you obtain your solar information from.  There are many.  I love watching the sun in motion it is beautiful.





Well to the weatherman of course.Some great information if info. overload is what you`re looking for.Ohhh the internet.


----------



## spooly74 (20 December 2008)

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/

and for the latest movie
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/LATEST/current_eit_171.mpg


----------



## Wysiwyg (21 December 2008)

Green08 said:


> Well don't just stop there!  Now we are moving ahead.
> I love watching the sun in motion it is beautiful.





It wouldn`t be complete without a toob video with easy to understand explanations.Especially how sunspots are formed by the currents of superheated gas creating magnetic fields.
It`s all done with mirr uhhh magnetism.


----------



## Julia (21 December 2008)

I heard Professor Bob Carter interviewed recently.  His qualifications, experience and views can be accessed here:   http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc

No doubt the believers will find some way of discrediting Prof Carter.


----------



## Calliope (21 December 2008)

Julia said:


> I heard Professor Bob Carter interviewed recently.  His qualifications, experience and views can be accessed here:   http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc
> 
> No doubt the believers will find some way of discrediting Prof Carter.




Prof. Carter is critical of 







> uninformed politicians who seek political advantage by cynical exploitation of the public's fear of global warming.




It is ironic that the alarmists are now attacking their former champion Mr Rudd for not being cynically exploitive enough.


----------



## wayneL (21 December 2008)

Julia said:


> I heard Professor Bob Carter interviewed recently.  His qualifications, experience and views can be accessed here:   http://members.iinet.net.au/~glrmc
> 
> No doubt the believers will find some way of discrediting Prof Carter.




Thanks for that link Julia, very interesting.

An article I found from his site contains some very important points regarding:


Temperature graphs being bandied around and particularly the one posted regularly on this forum.

The motivation to tend to alarmist conclusions, viz, funding etc.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/...e-being-ignored/2008/11/07/1225561134617.html


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 December 2008)

California to stick to 1990 levels by 2020 :-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_global_warming
Note that were these to be adopted nationally in US, the Union of Concerned Scientists calculates that there would be a saving of USD $26 billion to motorists.  No wonder Exxon are also "concerned". 



> ...   195 US cities representing more than 50 million Americans - have committed to reducing carbon emissions to 7% below 1990 levels. In 2005, California (the world's sixth largest economy) committed to reducing emissions to 2000 levels by 2010, 1990 levels by 2020, and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Measures to meet these targets include tighter automotive emissions standards, and requirements for renewable energy as a proportion of electricity production.
> 
> *The Union of Concerned Scientists has calculated that by 2020, drivers would save $26 billion per year if California’s automotive standards were implemented nationally.* [7]
> 
> ...




Arizona going the same / similar way
to hold to 2000 levels by 2020 


> On September 8, 2006, Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano signed an executive order calling on the state to create initiatives to cut greenhouse gas emissions to the 2000 level by the year 2020 and to 50 percent below the 2000 level by 2040.[9]





Meanwhile, the US Fed Govt has shown "intransigence, despite the clamor for change by the popular and scientific communities".

"The oil industry is working hard to thwart any legislation that would limit CO2 production".



> The moderate political viewpoint has been largely abandoned in the US due to Congress' inability to pass any significant CO2 regulation despite the overwhelming popular support for such measures. Also there is substantial evidence showing that *the oil industry is working hard to thwart any legislation that would limit CO2 production*.[3]
> 
> *Given the US government's intransigence despite the clamor for change by the popular and scientific communities*, the political rhetoric has become more extreme *if only to get government to move even slightly in the direction of CO2 control*.[4]


----------



## 2020hindsight (1 January 2009)

Incidentally, here's the White Paper:-
(and I'm betting that the Libs will pass it in the Senate).
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/whitepaper/report/index.html

After all, in Aus, both major parties are pro action on GW. (I think lol)

And in the recent US elections, Obama, Biden, and McCain were all pro-action, with the only contrary opinion coming from Palin.   It will be real interesting to see where the US goes after 20 Jan.  Certainly fewer options than before the economic disaster hit, but who knows.  Likewise (hopefully) the recession has bought a bit of breathing space. 

http://www.treasury.gov.au/lowpollu...ustralias_Low_Pollution_Future_Summary-02.asp



> The Australian Government has identified climate change as one of its highest policy priorities. The Government’s climate change policy is built on three pillars:
> 
> reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions;
> adapting to climate change that we cannot avoid; and
> ...




As for trends :-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading


> Market trend
> Carbon emissions trading has been steadily increasing in recent years. According to the World Bank's Carbon Finance Unit, 374 million metric tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (tCO2e) were exchanged through projects in 2005, a 240% increase relative to 2004 (110 mtCO2e)[40] which was itself a 41% increase relative to 2003 (78 mtCO2e).[41]
> 
> *In terms of dollars, the World Bank has estimated that the size of the carbon market was 11 billion USD in 2005, 30 billion USD in 2006[40], and 64 billion in 2007*[42].


----------



## 2020hindsight (1 January 2009)

Some notes on the US situation ...
(apart from leaning on car manufacturers to make smaller cars) :-

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/carbon.html



> Total U.S. carbon dioxide emissions in 2007 increased by 75.9 million metric tons (1.3 percent) compared with 2006 emissions (see Figure 5 on right), to 6,022 million metric tons (MMT). The increase offset a 1.4-percent drop in 2006 (to 5,946 MMT), raising the total back close to the 2005 level (6,032 MMT).
> 
> The important factors that contributed to the increase in carbon dioxide emissions in 2007 included: unfavorable weather, with both heating and cooling degree-days above 2006 levels (see discussion on "Weather Effects on energy-Related Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 2006 and 2007");
> 
> ...



more demand, less hydro to provide it 

Overall, it looks like the US CO2 output has gone up 17% in 17 years.


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 January 2009)

Stern's argument :- That it's cheaper to take action now than not to. 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/aug/09/scienceandnature.climatechange



> A number of recent publications assess the costs versus the benefits of action to combat climate change. Among the most influential, and the most hotly contested, is the Stern review on the economics of climate change, a dense 692-page argument, published last year, the most famous finding of which is that "the benefits of strong and early action far outweigh the economic costs of not acting". Nicholas Stern's argument was challenged almost immediately in Cool It by the Danish statistician BjÃ¸rn Lomborg, author of The Skeptical Environmentalist (Cambridge University Press).
> 
> Lomborg does not doubt that global warming is occurring, nor that it is caused by humans, but almost alone among commentators he finds reason to welcome it. In Europe, he explains, only 200,000 people die from excess heat each year, while 1.5 million die from cold. His message is simple: more warming, less death. Lomborg's style is marked by glib, misleading associations. Even if the sea rises, Lomborg says, we shouldn't worry - we'll just put up dykes. With dykes, he asserts, some nations might end up with more land than they have today.
> 
> And so the arguments go on, from rising seas to extreme weather events to malaria and other tropical diseases, the collapse of the Gulf Stream, food shortages and water shortages. In one case after another, Lomborg asserts that it's cheaper and better to do nothing immediate to combat climate change, but to invest in adapting to its consequences. It is in great contrast to Stern's painstaking and detailed analysis, and it entirely fails to dent Stern's case.


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 January 2009)

and a quote (paraphrased) that I read somewhere ...

We turn environmental capital (global health, oceans, air, biodiversity, etc into a sterile multistorey concrete building surrounded by asphalt (or cash for that matter) ... and say we've made a 'profit'.


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 January 2009)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2008/aug/09/scienceandnature.climatechange



> While the developed world could go it alone with pyrolysis, unless China and India can be induced to take a lower carbon path than the west, there is absolutely no hope for us. While both maintain formidably tough international negotiating positions, there are signs of change, particularly in the energy sectors of both countries. China has a target for renewable energy of 10% by 2020, and is embarking on the largest nuclear power programme currently being developed, while India is pursuing wind and hydro power.
> 
> Were the leaders of either country seeking a guide to determining a negotiating position in Copenhagen, they could do no better than Oliver Tickell's just-published book Kyoto2 (Zed Books), which provides a big-picture approach to the prevention of climatic catastrophe. *In essence, Tickell provides a blueprint for a global climate treaty. He documents the failings of the Kyoto protocol, then goes on to summarise the latest climate science, including the work of Hansen and his colleagues. The replacement to the Kyoto protocol, Tickell writes, must work effectively to achieve a level of atmospheric CO2 below 350ppm*. At the heart of the proposal is a global trade in carbon with a series of reducing caps sufficiently rigorous to bring about such an outcome.
> 
> ...


----------

