# Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?



## 2020hindsight (2 December 2007)

What do ASF members think of Global Warming, man's contribution thereto, and the urgency to act?. 

Notes ..
GW = global warming
brd = beyond reasonable doubt 

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) ditto - but we should act to reduce greenhouse gas effects anyway 
d) there is GW, the manmade contribution is PROVEN (brd), and the matter is not urgent 
e) ditto but corrective global action is a matter of urgency

f) other, with comments as you wish ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 December 2007)

Another way to ask this is :-

a) are you where Johnny Howard was 5 months ago? 
b) are you where Johnny Howard was 4 months ago? 
c) are you where Johnny Howard was 3 months ago? 
d) are you where Johnny Howard was 2 months ago? 
e) are you where Johnny Howard was 1 month ago? 
f) are you where Johnny Howard is now?


----------



## So_Cynical (2 December 2007)

Voted e) ditto but corrective global action is a matter of urgency.

The world is almost all committed down the corrective road and thats
all positives...lots of new technology in development lots of new jobs.

Just in Aust theres probably about 15 or so Geothermal 
explorers/developers that didn't exist 10 years ago.

Taking action is all good.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 December 2007)

I should have added

PLEASE READ AND VOTE CAREFULLY
Once you've voted, you are stuck with the world you selected 
(at a bit longer than the next 3 years )


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 December 2007)

f) comments :- deep down I think there's Anthropomorphic GW, but some 
- politicians
- religious leaders (who can remain nameless) and
- the tea lady
assured me that there's no need to do anything  

As these websites suggest...
*Industry (and religion) are polluting science. *

http://www.alternet.org/environment/38199
The Republicans and their business donors are stalling any meaningful attempts to reduce the damage of global warming


> Industry is polluting science
> 
> In 1999, President Bush called carbon dioxide "one of four main pollutants" that needed "mandatory reduction targets for emissions." But he changed his position in a 2003 letter that claimed it "is not a 'pollutant' under the Clean Air Act." (Not surprisingly, the American Petroleum Institute agrees: "Fundamentally, we don't think carbon dioxide is a pollutant.")
> 
> Meanwhile, the EPA's own website defines carbon dioxide as "Industrial Air Pollution" that contributes to "global climate change."




http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2007/s2050357.htm


> SIMON SANTOW: But when you see reports, your Eminence, that latest is a group of CSIRO scientists, where they are forecasting that if nothing is done about emissions by 2070, the temperature will rise by five degrees. You don't…
> 
> GEORGE PELL: I notice this is their latest change, I've studied this a little bit, and there's a whole history of differing estimates, 30 or 40 years ago, actually, some of the same scientists were warning us about the dangers of an ice age, so I take all these things with a grain of salt, they are matters for science and, as a layman, I study the scientific evidence rather than the press releases.
> 
> ...


----------



## Nyden (2 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> I should have added
> 
> PLEASE READ AND VOTE CAREFULLY
> Once you've voted, you are stuck with the world you selected
> (at a bit longer than the next 3 years )




Mate, your posts always entertain me! You're always so serious, yet your posts are entwined with boatloads of...well, I'm not sure - something reminiscent of sarcasm 

I believe in global warming - but climate change has always been around, & I believe it's cyclical. Although the last *major* climate change may have been impacted by a major event (i.e. comet). 

I believe that it's definitely important to play it safe than sorry though! And let's face it - I would certainly prefer cleaner air in our cities - bring on the electric cars! Ideally one that runs on Zinc, Copper, & Gold


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 December 2007)

Nyden said:


> Mate, your posts always entertain me! You're always so serious, yet your posts are entwined with boatloads of...well, I'm not sure - something reminiscent of sarcasm



well m8 - we're bound to hear plenty about this in the next few weeks - so we're just doing our own collective research yes ? 

sarcasm? not really .  cynical?  ,,,mmm

Like Roy Zimmerman ..
Am I a cynic?
No way,  I'm a hyprocrite!
unlike cynics, hypocrites believe in something!" 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIwiPsgRrOs

perhaps you're cyclical, and I'm cynical?
perhaps .. ah suddup !!


----------



## numbercruncher (2 December 2007)

> Provider navigation:
> Summary | AAP | AFP | Reuters | Photos
> Sunday December 2, 04:21 PM
> Bali talks to seek global climate deal
> ...




http://au.news.yahoo.com/071202/2/154yc.html


Wow 10,000 delegates! Wish i could be a fly on the wall to hear which technolgies Governments most want to pursue


----------



## explod (2 December 2007)

An interesting book I picked up about 1998 "The sixth Extinction".  Did not get much attention back then but was an interesting read.    It infers of course that this episode is the sixth.  The other five were various, a meteor a volcano, ice ages and warm ages.   But we need to note that they wiped out at least 90% of living species in thier periods.  The writer (who I do not remember) postulates that this time around the dynamics of overpopulation by humans who will be innovative enought to push things well beyond normal levels in which to survive will make it much worse.  He also claims that the previous apart from two were much slower in the making.

Anyway not being an expert I can only go by my life experience.  On the farm where I grew up my Dad religiously measured the rainfall.  We used to get 35 inches in a normal year, it would go up of down 5 to 10 from there.  I think in 52 we had over 40.     We collected tadpoles every year and it seemed to be wet underfoot, mud up to the anckles from April to October.

Now back there today, no tadpoles, a good year is 7 to 8 inches, sometimes a lot less. 

It was at a place called Hawkesdale West, in fact the political writer Tony Wright lived just two farms from us to the west.  (the last bit is not relevant to the argument, just that Tony has been in the Age a lot these last few weeks) 

I think the planet is buggerd and we do not have the will to turn off our life styles totally from the present ways or to ruduce human population by half in 20 years.  But from my humble perspective even if we do this the planet is in for a torrid time before it even starts to heal itself.


----------



## Happy (2 December 2007)

Desalination is the only way to go to fix water problem

If food will be too scarce and too many people, hard not to imagine what will follow.

One of the reasons why we should not sponsor anybody and why we should not have too many kids irrespectively of lucrative baby bonus.


----------



## numbercruncher (2 December 2007)

Yes overpopulation is the main culprit/problem .....


Western nations as long as they go easy on Immigration will fair well in this regards because of our falling fertility rates, China also leads the way here.


Just economic growth doesnt seem to go hand in hand with falling populations and low carbon footprints! Governments will need to get there heads around this fixation with economic growth for our survival.


----------



## Nyden (2 December 2007)

Happy said:


> Desalination is the only way to go to fix water problem
> 
> If food will be too scarce and too many people, hard not to imagine what will follow.
> 
> One of the reasons why we should not sponsor anybody and why we should not have too many kids irrespectively of lucrative baby bonus.




Hmmm, I'm conflicted about foreign child sponsorship. I agree that we have our own problems to resolve - but, well let's face it, even the worst cases of poverty here are most likely better than how they live in those countries. It's about showing support, over here we have options, they don't.

It's foolish to assume that people aren't going to be 'selfish' and want children - many couples want children not for monetary gain, but for the joy a child brings into the world. Unfortunately, that's a desire that's biologically hard-wired, and isn't going away :


----------



## numbercruncher (2 December 2007)

Happy said:


> Desalination is the only way to go to fix water problem
> 
> If food will be too scarce and too many people, hard not to imagine what will follow.
> 
> One of the reasons why we should not sponsor anybody and why we should not have too many kids irrespectively of lucrative baby bonus.




I reckon that too, GM have a prototype Hydrogen car, Put Sea water in and it emits a trickle of fresh water, now if all cars on the road where these our roads would always be wet ( Be nice healthy plants along road sides everywhere) but all this water i reckon would evaporate form clouds and increase rainfall ! Might even help keep sea levels lower due to warming>melting ice caps? If hundreds of millions of cars used sea water ! Might put the oil barons out of Business thou!


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 December 2007)

well I'm taking really seriously 
like
I only use one burner on the bar-bq
and I take the steak off when it's really rare (you have to guess when the last "moo" is coming out of the meat)

and I used to take charcoal tablets for flatulence, but I've stopped taking them too - don't want to leave a carbon footprint anywhere, do we 

and I've stopped using pencils because they have carbon in them -   and also stoped using carbon paper in the invoice book - I just write it all out twice


----------



## numbercruncher (2 December 2007)

Im doing my bit as well, I get the mrs to mow the lawns with a pair of scissors


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 December 2007)

Happy said:


> Desalination is the only way to go to fix water problem
> 
> ... we should not have too many kids irrespectively of lucrative baby bonus.



PS Gotta feeling that desalinators are pretty energy hungry beasts - might be ok for water, but yet more CO2 generated in the process ( hard to get ahead in this game, isn't it) . 

Things are going to go "exponential" on us , even if we put massive effort into correcting things now and for the next 100 years.   

Saw a doco with methane being released from the frozen wastes of Russia 
- so it becomes a massive spiral of greenhouse gases causing melting arctic ice -  causing methane etc (which is even worse than CO2) , causing more GW etc...

As for population explosions, the Chinese have voluntarily stopped themselves having 220 million kids since they went for the one child policy - 

i.e. they have voluntarily stopped their people from increasing by the population of the USA !!

Now - what have the USA done ??  zilch but play semantics with the word "pollution" and whether CO2 and GW qualifies .


----------



## nioka (2 December 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> I reckon that too, GM have a prototype Hydrogen car, Put Sea water in and it emits a trickle of fresh water, now if all cars on the road where these our roads would always be wet ( Be nice healthy plants along road sides everywhere) but all this water i reckon would evaporate form clouds and increase rainfall ! Might even help keep sea levels lower due to warming>melting ice caps ? If hundreds of millions of cars used sea water ! Might put the oil barons out of Business thou!



 Good one. Sea water= NaCl (salt) + H2O (water) + dissolved minerals and traces of gases. Hydrogen if it is burnt must come from the water leaving behind the minerals. How then can we get fresh water left behind? What happens to the salts. Does the car emit nitros oxide ( laughing gas). I remember a scam years ago where a chap drove up to a service station and asked to have the fuel tank filled with water. He then added a tablet and then ran the engine. Sold heaps of tablets to the operator then drove off. He forgot to tell them that the engine ran off another tank, not the one the water went into.


----------



## numbercruncher (2 December 2007)

Hi Nioka,

Not sure, im no engineer, just a average muppet lol.

Heres a video of GM Hydrogen fuel cell cars though ... They say the tech will be ready to go late 2009.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Obs2tAq57j8&feature=related

Might be a business in selling/tanking sea water in tomorrows world hey!!


----------



## Happy (2 December 2007)

Seawater can be evaporated using sun, condensated droplets during the cool of night collected.

System doesn’t have to be connected to national grid, like solar panels.


----------



## Scuba (2 December 2007)

Happy said:


> edited for brevity....... why we should not have too many kids irrespectively of lucrative baby bonus.



You obviously haven't bought decent shoes for toddlers lately! "lucrative baby bonus" "All pigs fed and ready to fly SIR!"



2020hindsight said:


> well I'm taking really seriously
> like
> I only use one burner on the bar-bq
> and I take the steak off when it's really rare (you have to guess when the last "moo" is coming out of the meat)
> ...



ROFLing really hard at your post 2020!
"Rip it's horns off, shave it, wipe it's "R"ss, show it a photo of a lit match, and put it on the plate!"

Footprint or brown air alert, each way we lose... 

However fatuous this post may be, I did vote as my vote counts, (e). The results of being wrong could be catastrophic for all our descendants, even life on Earth...


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 December 2007)

Scuba said:


> "Rip it's horns off, shave it, wipe it's "R"ss, show it a photo of a lit match, and put it on the plate!".



hi scuba ,  completely :topic this one ...
reminds me ...
When I lived in HK (for 5 years way back when I was single), I used to go to the markets for meat sometimes.  They used to butcher the animals (cattle pigs) in a carpark at Stanley on HK Island.  Anyway you know what the Chinese are like, don't waste a damned thing - even eat the pigs entrails , crisp - often the menu comes out a bit wrong - "breakable pig's enteritis" for instance.. 

Anyway to get back to the story, I thought I'd try some Ox tail soup (like mum used to make lol). - So I finally communicated to this bloke in broken Chinese that I'd like to buy an ox tail - finally he gets the message, - then he gets this strange look as if I'm crazy -  walks over to this big vat of "leftovers" - rolld up his sleeve, reaches in (with his nose plugged), pulls out a tail still with hairy hide, and completely covered in ****,  and says incredulously " you want buy THIS!!"

"On second thoughts", I exclaimed apologetically, "I think I've changed my mind ......." ...


----------



## wayneL (2 December 2007)

Well let's reduce CO2. As others have said, the risk is not worth taking by not doing something. I'm a skeptic over the anthropomorphic bit of GW, nevertheless I'm doing all I can reasonably do and still live in a society... much more than those bleating on about it.

My focus is on pollution. By focussing solely on co2, folks are missing the bigger picture of pollution in general. I don't know whether we are heating up the planet, but I know we are raping, pillaging and poisoning it. If we're not careful the planet will *not* heat up, but will still end up uninhabitable.

A bigger picture is needed IMO.


----------



## So_Cynical (3 December 2007)

I think some members need a little more info about the subject so...just doing this because any action taken by govts will be under Kyoto framework and Kyoto2 treaty will just be a continuation (with adjustments) of the original Kyoto treaty.

There are 6 greenhouse gases under Kyoto Treaty and different quantity's of these gases are given different values.

carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, HFCs, and PFCs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php

Greenhouse gases are components of the atmosphere that contribute to the greenhouse effect. Without the greenhouse effect the Earth would be uninhabitable;[1] in its absence, the mean temperature of the earth would be about -19 °C (-2 °F, 254 K) rather than the present mean temperature of about 15 °C (59 °F, 288 K)[2]. Greenhouse gases include in the order of relative abundance _water vapor_, _carbon dioxide_, _methane_, _nitrous oxide_, and _ozone_. The majority of greenhouse gases come mostly from natural sources but are also contributed to by human activity.


----------



## chops_a_must (3 December 2007)

wayneL said:


> Well let's reduce CO2. As others have said, the risk is not worth taking by not doing something. I'm a skeptic over the anthropomorphic bit of GW, nevertheless I'm doing all I can reasonably do and still live in a society... much more than those bleating on about it.
> 
> My focus is on pollution. By focussing solely on co2, folks are missing the bigger picture of pollution in general. I don't know whether we are heating up the planet, but I know we are raping, pillaging and poisoning it. If we're not careful the planet will *not* heat up, but will still end up uninhabitable.
> 
> A bigger picture is needed IMO.




Yup. Agreed.

The argument about climate change and the human impact, to me, represents problems within inductivist arguments as a whole. You will never know for sure until after the fact. 

I don't know if we are causing climate change (I voted that way), but not doing something about it is akin to telling a cancer patient we aren't going to do anything for them, because we don't know what caused it. It is simply non-sensical. 

The arguments from the economic side of things, that cutting CO2 emissions are not viable, to me, is a joke over the long term. We know we are at, or already past the peak oil curve, so the majority of fuel costs are going to become incredibly high over the next few years. Reducing CO2 emissions and reducing energy input costs are going to become synonymous in the next business cycle, and the more we can think like that, the better off our economy will be in the future.

For anyone sceptical of climate change, I don't think you are going to be continuing to hold that position position into the future. Certainly, environmentalists have had many of their predictions found wrong, but on the macro scale i.e. CFC's and peak oil, they have been very correct.

I urge anyone who hasn't already done so, to pay for a small amount of their power with the green energy option. Especially here in WA. I think you can pay as little as $10 per bill, and most people here could easily afford it. It is all audited, and there aren't any holes. It would make a massive difference.


----------



## Scuba (3 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> ... edited for bevity ...
> Anyway to get back to the story, I thought I'd try some Ox tail soup (like mum used to make lol). - So I finally communicated to this bloke in broken Chinese that I'd like to buy an ox tail - finally he gets the message, - then he gets this strange look as if I'm crazy -  walks over to this big vat of "leftovers" - rolld up his sleeve, reaches in (with his nose plugged), pulls out a tail still with hairy hide, and completely covered in ****,  and says incredulously " you want buy THIS!!"
> 
> "On second thoughts", I exclaimed apologetically, "I think I've changed my mind ......." ...



Got me rolling again, priceless! Have a really funny email on Chinese english somewhere (yes, off top. but....)...


----------



## noirua (3 December 2007)

Just cut out virtually all forms of packaging and Australia will have done its bit towards reducing global warming in one fell swoop.


----------



## Happy (3 December 2007)

Scuba said:


> "lucrative baby bonus"




Sarcastic comment.

As to shoes, you can buy larger adult sizes when on super special and wait for kid to catch up (this is supposed to be funny comment).

Sorry for not being socially correct.


----------



## nikkothescorpio (3 December 2007)

Scuba said:


> The results of being wrong could be catastrophic for all our descendants, even life on Earth...





This is it though - I mean just go worst case scenario each way..

Worst case scenario that the scientists are wrong and global warming isn't a problem etc - mainly economic losses from lost opportunities, capacity etc.

Worst case scenario and the scientists are right - and we may all go the way of the dinosaurs or atleast a significant % of humanity and other lifeforms on the planet.

I'd be happy to take a risk on the first one but WHY would you want to risk the latter?????????

Is a real no brainer.

Alas we've no real leadership on this matter as our pollies are all too busy trying to keep their populations happy by not taking the hard steps needed!!!

Future generations will look back on them and also us as a disgrace for not acting more urgently.


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 December 2007)

Happy said:


> As to shoes, you can buy larger adult sizes when on super special and wait for kid to catch up (this is supposed to be funny comment).



And that's the other thing I'm doing to contribute.
I leave my shoes on 24/7. 
I took em off the other day, and even the dog left the room. 
Trouble is my shoes are starting to turn green - from the inside out. 

Nikko - spot on - this is where every nation needs to show its true moral credentials.  Enough of the USA/ AUS lead selfishness "stuff the rest of you, and/or future generations of all countries (including ourselves), we refuse to give up one ounce of our quality of life or economic wealth for the good of the world".    I think this could be who/whom Dawkins was arguably referring to in his book "The Selfish Gene"


----------



## skint (3 December 2007)

nikkothescorpio said:


> This is it though - I mean just go worst case scenario each way..
> 
> Worst case scenario that the scientists are wrong and global warming isn't a problem etc - mainly economic losses from lost opportunities, capacity etc.
> 
> ...




I agree, by and large. Also, many of the measures needed to address climate change are changes that are necessary for other reasons. A couple of examples. We seem to have past peak oil (as chops mentioned) or are, at least, very close to it. So moves to alternate energy for transport need to occur regardless. The clearing of another finite resource, the large forests of Indonesia, South America and so on also needs to be curtailed for reasons of biodiversity and all the benefits that entails. Clean urban air is also desirable and the list goes on...and on. 
On a personal front, I've been doing my bit. I've been powering my computer from methane from the dunny. Unfortunately, the system is prone to some unfortunate byproduct and explains why my posts can be a bit crappy.


----------



## Happy (3 December 2007)

nikkothescorpio said:


> This is it though - I mean just go worst case scenario each way..
> 
> Worst case scenario that the scientists are wrong and global warming isn't a problem etc - mainly economic losses from lost opportunities, capacity etc.
> 
> ...





On the positive side, in 5 billion years our Sun will expand, gobble up our planet or at least cook it (very severe case of global warming).

Then Sun will collapse; become lifeless dwarf and our solar system will become very cold and why argue about the end?

If it is only a matter of time.


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 December 2007)

Happy said:


> On the positive side, in 5 billion years our Sun will expand, gobble up our planet or at least cook it (very severe case of global warming).
> 
> Then Sun will collapse; become lifeless dwarf and our solar system will become very cold and why argue about the end?
> 
> If it is only a matter of time.



hey happy - lol - I realise you are taking the piss - but ... 17 seconds !! verses another 12 hours !!  - (details follow) 



> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part5/section-7.html
> The Sun is a yellow, G2 V main sequence dwarf.  Yellow dwarfs live
> about 10 billion years (from zero-age main sequence to white dwarf
> formation), and our Sun is already about 5 billion years old.




Five (5)  billion years is a long time, especially when the church reckons we've only been here 6000 years - sheesh 

But using scientifically sensible estimates like 4.8 billion since earth was made (a la most scientists) compares pretty close with 5 billion - so the sun is "middle aged"  

i.e. The clock has been around once (through 12 hours) - and has another 12 to go.

Don't forget man only turned up 17 seconds to midday :2two cents

You'd have to conclude he's not a very good caretaker.  

Or of course you can argue like this bloke I guess.... 
 :bonk:  :silly:



> Cardinal Pell says in the past, pagans sacrificed animals and even humans in vain attempts to placate the gods but today they demand a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 December 2007)

I plan to do some more background reading myself - but here IPCC's website ( joint Nobel Prize winners) 
http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/presentations.htm


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 December 2007)

Attenborough
here's a quick summary


----------



## Happy (3 December 2007)

I do not have problems with combating global warming.

I am more for human population reduction and sustainable reduced production rather than ever increasing one, less hungry energy needs too.

I am one of those who will put jumper on before put heater on, but I am accused of being tight rather than thoughtful of my footprint.


----------



## numbercruncher (3 December 2007)

That Ruddy good bloke has, on behalf of Australia, ratified the Kyoto Protocol.




> Prime Minister Kevin Rudd signed the instrument of ratification of the Kyoto Protocol in his first act after being sworn in on Monday morning.
> 
> The ratification will come into force in 90 days.




http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=224899


----------



## Wysiwyg (3 December 2007)

Here`s a good one to sink your teeth into,  



> Seventeen million tonnes of food is being ploughed into Britain's landfill sites every year - all because it's cheaper and easier for the food industry to dump it than give it to those in need.
> 
> It's a massive waste when you consider that around four million tonnes of this food is perfectly alright to eat - fresh, tasty, and well within its sell-by-date.




and a summary of what is happening in our own backyard, from the Australian government

ps...  i don`t know whether the supermarket waste statistics are better or worse in Australia but i bet they are higher than anywhere, especially meat at "inflated" prices not being bought.


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 December 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> That Ruddy good bloke has, on behalf of Australia, ratified the Kyoto Protocol.



thanks nc
fan- bludy-tastic  
and how difficult was that lol.

At last USA can be seen to be friendless in their pursuit of selfishness.


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 December 2007)

IMO the problem here is far too much simplistic thinking. That and too much outright nonsense too.

It's to the point of outright brainwashing in many cases. One classic example is the recently popular claim that water tanks will fight climate change - outright rubbish and it could be argued that the reverse is true.

And we never seem to do a proper analysis. For example, another one of the "easy" things to help the planet is the ban on plastic shopping bags. Smurf has a question however - what effect will this have on car use and CO2 emissions? I'm thinking they will probably rise and certainly not fall. No more impulse purchases as you walk through the city at lunchtime - now it's far easier to just bring the car in on the weekend. Lots of examples like that but no analysis was ever done, or if it was then it was buried along with the bags.

Then we get things like the light bulb ban. I'll give you a guarantee here - 12 months after it is implemented, electricity use will have gone up, not down. Consumers won't be replacing that 100 Watt bulb in the kitchen with a 20 W fluoro used for the same time. Nope. They'll either get a 30 W fluoro and leave it on all day or, more likely, they'll install those energy guzzling halogen downlights instead. Just look at how many lounge rooms have 300 - 500 Watts of those things installed but still aren't very bright. But nobody had 5 x 100 W bulbs before.

And of course while we meddle with bags, bulbs and other token gestures, we ignore the hard reality. Aviation is excluded from most proposals to cut emissiosns and yet (1) it's the fastest growing source of CO2 and (2) it will in itself exceed the "safe" emissions level by the middle of the century based on most forecasts.

Great, I'll have to get rid of that nasty 100 W bulb in the ceiling fan light (fluoro won't fit otherwise it would have gone already). Then I'll step outside (in order to see...) and notice 200,000 Watt gas guzzlers parked all up and down the street. Yep, that 100 Watts is really going to make all the difference and save the world...

In short, outright nonsense most of it. Global warming is real IMO but we're doing nothing serious about it. All the "feel good" stuff, Kyoto included, is just that. Gives that warm and fuzzy feeling whilst doing basically nothing about the problem.

Only way we'll get real action IMO is if some clean technology does it on economic grounds alone and/or peak oil and peak gas smacks us in the face somewhat harder than most are expecting.


----------



## Happy (4 December 2007)

Also fastest growing economies are excluded from Kyoto.

Few years down the track, voters who lost jobs because of hasty signature will probably vote for Liberals to get the job back.


----------



## numbercruncher (4 December 2007)

Wont be long i imagine until kyoto members start placing import tarrifs on non members goods, after all we arnt going to deliver a free trade advantage to others are we, especially ones pillaging the enviroment.


----------



## chops_a_must (4 December 2007)

Happy said:


> Also fastest growing economies are excluded from Kyoto.
> 
> Few years down the track, voters who lost jobs because of hasty signature will probably vote for Liberals to get the job back.




Oh... Like those manufacturing workers the libs refused to stand up for?


----------



## Happy (4 December 2007)

Lack of import tariffs killed their jobs, unless they could work for $1 a day or $10 a week


----------



## --B-- (4 December 2007)

So, St Kev has bowed to "popular" public opinion and jumped in to sign Kyoto.

As Australia now seems destined to exceed its targets under kyoto by about 1 percent, we can all look forward to paying about 1.6bn in fines

Hooray??

Japan, Spain and Italy are all going to (surprise surprise) exceed their targets and will be required to pay a combined 33bn in fines. The vast majority of these fines will be passed on to taxpayers.

I can hear the greeny nutters cheering in the streets....

do fines "fix" the climate?


----------



## Happy (4 December 2007)

--B-- said:


> So, St Kev has bowed to "popular" public opinion and jumped in to sign Kyoto.
> 
> As Australia now seems destined to exceed its targets under kyoto by about 1 percent, we can all look forward to paying about 1.6bn in fines
> 
> ...




If correct, now we will have to send some more work offshore to lower the emission, raise taxes or both.

Hooray ??


----------



## --B-- (4 December 2007)

Happy said:


> If correct, now we will have to send some more work offshore to lower the emission, raise taxes or both.
> 
> Hooray ??




As ive stated, Spain, Italy and Japan are well over their targets and face a combined 33bn in fines which they will pass onto businesses and tax payers.




> Japan, Italy and Spain face fines of as much as $33 billion combined for failing to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions as promised under the Kyoto treaty.
> 
> Spain will pass 40 percent of the cost for the extra emissions on to businesses, Secretary of State for Energy Ignasi Nieto told journalists in Madrid July 31. The rest will come from taxes.
> 
> ...



http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=akEM_x0ximjk&refer=japan

i can see no doubting that australian consumers and tax payers will be forced to pick up our inevitable bill.

I guess the greeny nutters can sleep well knowing we've signed the big ticket kyoto protocol theyve been championing for years. Pensioners struggling every week to pay the bills better start saving their pennys...


----------



## professor_frink (4 December 2007)

On the subject of Kyoto, is there any evidence at this stage that suggest that it's actually working?

How on earth do they even measure it


----------



## --B-- (4 December 2007)

professor_frink said:


> On the subject of Kyoto, is there any evidence at this stage that suggest that it's actually working?
> 
> How on earth do they even measure it




well frink, going by the amount of countries who are not going to meet their target emissions, you could say its not exactly working.

The fact that these countries are then fined and subsequently pass these fines onto taxpayers, hardly constitutes an incentive to rigorously cut their emissions anyway.

unless fines "fix" the climate, id suggest that no - kyoto is not working. 

This is just one reason why many people now agree that the kyoto protocol is fundamentally flawed... this didnt stop Kevvy signing up at the first second he had a chance though.... Mr popular and all that..


----------



## Scuba (4 December 2007)

I suppose you have an alternative to Kyoto --B--,? No doubt a really good one that John Dubbaya Howard shared with you before he was sacked.... ROFL

Mr popular will get to a point where his use by date will be up too, and so it goes.

Hopefully, his "tough decisions" will involve getting behind Australia's 'green' energy companies and encouraging some innovation rather than doing what J.H. did which was scare mongering about the costs of such energies and removing funding from such research...


----------



## So_Cynical (4 December 2007)

Happy said:


> Also fastest growing economies are excluded from Kyoto.
> 
> Few years down the track, voters who lost jobs because of hasty signature will probably vote for Liberals to get the job back.



They are only excluded from the 1990 level requirement they are included in the CDM...the idea was that the big polluters that already had the development/money would pave the way technology wise....however without the Americans it didn't quite work out that way.

Kyoto creates more jobs than it ends


----------



## So_Cynical (4 December 2007)

--B-- said:


> So, St Kev has bowed to "popular" public opinion and jumped in to sign Kyoto.
> 
> As Australia now seems destined to exceed its targets under kyoto by about 1 percent, we can all look forward to paying about 1.6bn in fines
> 
> Hooray??




Well thats what happens when your govt makes a mistake, we now have 7 years to do what we could of easy done in 17 years....instead of talking about clean coal plants we would be building them.


----------



## gilbo (4 December 2007)

IMO the question that needs answering is not if the Earth is getting warmer (over a very short recent period of time it may well have, but it's been warmer before) but is it actually mankind that's doing it?

There are plenty of theories about CO2 emissions, CFC's, CO emissions, methane emissions etc all affecting climate, the ozone layer (remember that was shrinking not so long ago, last I heard it was getting bigger again) but they are really only theories - nothing is proven. And given the consequences either way, shouldn't we still be debating this?

It really is important to stop and do this. Just because a few computer simulations (programmed by people who don't even understand all of the variables that impact on climate) say we've only got 5mins to live doesn't mean that we can throw all intelligent debate out of the window and start running around declaring we're all doomed.

And if Man is not doing it then it very probably will just as quickly reverse itself again - don't forget it was only 30 years or so ago that the latest theory was we were heading for the next Ice Age just after the next advert break had finished. Never heard much of that again - bit like the ozone layer really.


----------



## chops_a_must (4 December 2007)

gilbo said:


> Never heard much of that again - bit like the ozone layer really.



Groan...


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 December 2007)

--B-- said:


> So, St Kev has bowed to "popular" public opinion and jumped in to sign Kyoto.    As Australia now seems destined to exceed its targets under kyoto by about 1 percent, we can all look forward to paying about 1.6bn in fines
> 
> Hooray??
> 
> ...




B,  
Japan Spain etc will pay their fines with their tax dollars - you needn't worry your little selfish breast about it.

As for our contribution to the planetary effort - try going to Spain and/or Japan and bragging how clever we are / Howard was in avoiding the taxes they are paying.   Maybe you'll be lucky and escape with some spittal in your eye  - you'll have done a great job in reaffirming to those countries that Australia (worst co2e per capita other than opec) and USA are just selfish people who don't dserve to be included in polite society. 




gilbo said:


> IMO the question that needs answering is not if the Earth is getting warmer (over a very short recent period of time it may well have, but it's been warmer before) but is it actually mankind that's doing it?




well whether or not you voted to ignore global warming or not (assuming you voted UNPROVEN) , either way,  gilbo, it is you in the minority here. 

Try listening to that youtube by David Attenborough a few posts back


----------



## 2020hindsight (4 December 2007)

let em quantify the thing ... (only been in power for 36 hours ) 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/04/2109482.htm?section=justin


> Impact of Labor's climate policies to be quantified: Wong
> Posted 3 hours 46 minutes ago
> 
> Climate Change Minister Penny Wong has asked her department to calculate the effect of new environmental policies on Australia's ability to meet its Kyoto target.
> ...




meanwhile back at the science lab....

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/04/2109445.htm?section=justin


> New approach to climate change research
> Posted 4 hours 10 minutes ago
> Updated 3 hours 56 minutes ago
> The mysteries of climate change may be uncovered by the work of a new research centre incorporating the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO.
> ...


----------



## robert toms (4 December 2007)

I think it is best to defer to the expert consenus on global warming,not to the few skeptics.
Interesting what evidence people will accept and what they will not.Polls showed that 95% of people in the US believed that Saddam had WMD's.The evidence came from a most unreliable source ,but the majority believed it.
When the overwhelming majority of scientists from diverse countries are in unison,their views have credibility with me.
If anyone owned a share called Pacific Hydro you would know what the Howard governments attitude was to renewable energy,and it was that nothing would interfere with the supremacy of the coal industry.
Even if the global warming argument falls flat in the long run ,what is wrong with a new energy paradigm?
The fossil fuel paradigm is surely short term gain for the few and unsustainable...with a complete disregard for future generations.
Better to be safe than sorry on this one!


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 December 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Wont be long i imagine until kyoto members start placing import tarrifs on non members goods, after all we arnt going to deliver a free trade advantage to others are we, especially ones pillaging the enviroment.



Totally agreed we're headed for tariffs and other trade-limiting measures though I think it will happen with or without Kyoto.

And that raises a lot of questions. For example, how does a steelworks in Europe differentiate ferro manganese from TEMCO (only Aust producer) with that from some non-Kyoto producer? It's just a bulk commodity after all. Same with aluminium, zinc and all the rest.

Are we about to see a non-Kyoto price for aluminium and a Kyoto price that is different? Or outright tariffs on the non-Kyoto product?


----------



## numbercruncher (4 December 2007)

Another disturbing piece of Information from John Dubbya Howards reign ...




> Claim UN was misled on Aust emissions Figures out 'by up to 20pc'
> 
> 
> The Howard government misled the United Nations over the scale of its efforts to tackle climate change and meet its Kyoto emission reduction targets, according to senior government sources.
> ...





http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/news/local/general/claim-un-was-misled-on-aust-emissions-figures-out-by-up-to-20pc/1097788.html

The histroy books are going to judge these guys really really harshly.


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 December 2007)

But will the Greens and Labor actually support renewable energy development when it comes to the crunch? 

If we're going to do it on a big enough scale to comply with Kyoto in the long term then we need more than a few solar HWS and flouro lights.

I don't think I'm being overly cynical here, just looking at the track record of the Greens where they began, in Tasmania.

They once supported Basslink, wind farms and burning wood for fuel. All of which were opposed the moment someone tried to actually develop them. They opposed gas, then supported it, then opposed it, then backed a hastily built gas-fired power plant (no environmental studies etc, none whatsoever) when they realised that they'd been wrong for the past 25 years and there actually wasn't a surplus of power after all.

And Smurf will never miss the irony in the Greens' nice little bit about "clean, green hydro-electricity". Greens saying anything good about hydro power is like the Liberals jumping into bed with the unions. It just doesn't fit with their very basis and I don't believe it's anything more than words that will reverse the moment someone tries to build even the smallest weir.

I'm not anti-Green. But I'm truly fed up with their constant changing of position on these issues. They say they support it but then organise protests the moment someone tries to build it. They only support things they know aren't viable, or at least aren't likely to be built.

IMO climate change is the priority. I've thought that since around 1990. Wind farms can be dismantled and the scenery comes back. Dams can be drained and the valley almost completely restored (a point publicly acknowledged by Bob Brown himself). All the other scenic things are likewise ultimately restorable. But not so with the climate and fossil fuel depletion - hence my priority on getting out of fossils and just accept the downsides of renewables.


----------



## spooly74 (4 December 2007)

gilbo said:


> There are plenty of theories about CO2 emissions, CFC's, CO emissions, methane emissions etc all affecting climate, the ozone layer (remember that was shrinking not so long ago, last I heard it was getting bigger again) but they are really only theories - nothing is proven. And given the consequences either way, shouldn't we still be debating this?




CFCs were proven to harm the ozone layer back in the early 80s.
Now though, most governments have signed the Montreal Protocol to phase out CFCs and replace them with HCFCs and HCFs, unfortunately they are not ideal either and the Protocol wants to phase them out eventually too.

Scientists are hopeful of seeing the ozone layer start to close sometime in the 2020s (it currently grows in spring and shrinks in summer), whether or not the planet cools down after that, who knows? Either way we`ll adapt.


----------



## --B-- (5 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> B,
> Japan Spain etc will pay their fines with their tax dollars - you needn't worry your little selfish breast about it.




not quite sure of the point of this statement 2020. Ive basically spelled that out for you. just taking an opportunity to lay some abuse? seems quite the style of greenies et al who get angry when people disagree with them. 



> As for our contribution to the planetary effort - try going to Spain and/or Japan and bragging how clever we are / Howard was in avoiding the taxes they are paying.   Maybe you'll be lucky and escape with some spittal in your eye  - you'll have done a great job in reaffirming to those countries that Australia (worst co2e per capita other than opec) and USA are just selfish people who don't dserve to be included in polite society.



hmmmm.. lots of dribble and hardly anything constructive to say.. imagine my surprise...



> well whether or not you voted to ignore global warming or not (assuming you voted UNPROVEN) , either way,  gilbo, it is you in the minority here.



gilbo's point is completely valid. whether or not 'global warming' exists its man kinds contribution (AGM) thats important.. so far this is unproven and is based on guesswork and NOTHING else. 

and firstly, lets get this straight - we have seen decreasing temps over the past 9-10 years - hardly a stellar example of the claimed catastrophic global warming. (its ok hypists, close your ears to that one)..


----------



## --B-- (5 December 2007)

So_Cynical said:


> Well thats what happens when your govt makes a mistake, we now have 7 years to do what we could of easy done in 17 years....instead of talking about clean coal plants we would be building them.




oh sure. the kyoto protocol has been around for 17 years huh? dont let facts get in the way of a good story i suppose....


----------



## skint (5 December 2007)

--B-- said:


> gilbo's point is completely valid. whether or not 'global warming' exists its man kinds contribution (AGM) thats important.. so far this is unproven and is based on guesswork and NOTHING else.
> 
> and firstly, lets get this straight - we have seen decreasing temps over the past 9-10 years - hardly a stellar example of the claimed catastrophic global warming. (its ok hypists, close your ears to that one)..




I'm not quite sure why you believe your opinion to be better than the overwhelming view of the global scientific community. Its not guesswork, the reality of climate change has been formed from a confluence of a staggering amount of research and data.
Your claim that global and domestic temperatures have been falling shows how ignorant you are of the situation. Below are the websites for historic temperatures, both globally and within Australia. They're unimbiguously rising.

http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20060104.shtml

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6228765.stm


----------



## --B-- (5 December 2007)

skint said:


> I'm not quite sure why you believe your opinion to be better than the overwhelming view of the global scientific community. Its not guesswork, the reality of climate change has been formed from a confluence of a staggering amount of research and data.




it is not simply my opinion skint. the IPCC reports state they are "only 90% certain" and this is based on computer modelling. computer modeling is guesswork where figures are fed into hypothesised models.

the fact remains the level of human contribution to GW (anthropogenic global warming) remains unproven by science.



> Your claim that global and domestic temperatures have been falling shows how ignorant you are of the situation. Below are the websites for historic temperatures, both globally and within Australia. They're unimbiguously rising.
> 
> http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/climate/change/20060104.shtml
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6228765.stm



lol... come on skint. firstly i never mentioned domestic temps. 

this is from your own article:



> They say there is a 60% chance that the average surface temperature will match or exceed the current record from 1998.



as i said, the world temps have never been as warm as they were around 9-10 years ago. ie: since the high of 1998. if we are in a period of catastrohpic global warming shouldnt we see temps increasing? a 60% guess is hardly conclusive evidence of anything now is it....


----------



## skint (5 December 2007)

--B-- said:


> it is not simply my opinion skint. the IPCC reports state they are "only 90% certain" and this is based on computer modelling. computer modeling is guesswork where figures are fed into hypothesised models.
> 
> the fact remains the level of human contribution to GW (anthropogenic global warming) remains unproven by science.
> 
> ...




The IPCC acknowledged that its estimates were conservative. Nonetheless, would you insure your house if there was a 90% chance it would burn down?

I provided domestic temps to illustrate that the extent to which Aust. is consistent with the global trend. Regardless of the commentary in the article, the graphs speak for themselves. Might be time to wake up and smell the coffee. By your own admission, the chance of you being correct is 10% at best, and even that is drawing the long bow.


----------



## --B-- (5 December 2007)

skint said:


> The IPCC acknowledged that its estimates were conservative. Nonetheless, would you insure your house if there was a 90% chance it would burn down?




90% chance based on a guess is fairly flimsy. in any case, were not discussing whether to insure a house we're discussing the guesswork of the IPCC. do you think we can 'insure' the climate?



> I provided domestic temps to illustrate that the extent to which Aust. is consistent with the global trend.




the fact remains that global mean temperatures have not exceeded the highs of 1998. should we see increases if we are in fact in the middle of catastrophic global warming?



> Regardless of the commentary in the article, the graphs speak for themselves.




see above.



> Might be time to wake up and smell the coffee.




im simply stating the facts skint. the typical counter of those who seek to 'convert' people who ask for scientific proof is usually something along the lines you just posted... hardly a compelling argument.



> By your own admission, the chance of you being correct is 10% at best, and even that is drawing the long bow.



.

absolutely incorrect, but nice try all the same. ive stated the IPCC admit that the chances their own guesswork is true is only 90%.

im not saying im incorrect or correct skint, merely stating the the sceince behind AGW is inconclusive at best. 'waking up and smelling the coffee' doesnt cut it for me.


----------



## chops_a_must (5 December 2007)

--B-- said:


> 90% chance based on a guess is fairly flimsy. in any case, were not discussing whether to insure a house we're discussing the guesswork of the IPCC. do you think we can 'insure' the climate?
> 
> the fact remains that global mean temperatures have not exceeded the highs of 1998. should we see increases if we are in fact in the middle of catastrophic global warming?



Nice way to change the subject. But yes, this is about insuring the climate, that's the whole point.

Do you think shares breaking out continue to set higher highs for every minute of every day? No? But it certainly doesn't break a trend.

The obvious selfishness of people on this thread is absolutely astounding.


----------



## --B-- (5 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Nice way to change the subject. But yes, this is about insuring the climate, that's the whole point.




i thought i was steering it back on topic chops.

im not disputing that its in humans best interests to ensure our climate is stable and "healthy" what i do "question" is the extent that humans have on supposed global warming. 



> The obvious selfishness of people on this thread is absolutely astounding.




heres another personal jibe. we're discussing a hot (pun intended. lol) issue in the world at the moment and debate oon such matters is always healthy for both sides. 

those who simply disregard any challenge to the issues, and label those who raise questions as selfish, are simply ignoring the FACT that many questions surrounding the issue remain unanswered. 

actually i seem to remember you displaying your level of ignorance on the subject a month or so ago in another thread. i think to label myself and anyone else who remains unconvinced about AWG as 'selfish' is extremely shortsighted and hardly warrants your inclusion in any debate.


----------



## chops_a_must (5 December 2007)

--B-- said:


> i thought i was steering it back on topic chops.
> 
> im not disputing that its in humans best interests to ensure our climate is stable and "healthy" what i do "question" is the extent that humans have on supposed global warming.



No, you are opposing methods of correction.



--B-- said:


> those who simply disregard any challenge to the issues, and label those who raise questions as selfish, are simply ignoring the FACT that many questions surrounding the issue remain unanswered.
> 
> actually i seem to remember you displaying your level of ignorance on the subject a month or so ago in another thread. i think to label myself and anyone else who remains unconvinced about AWG as 'selfish' is extremely shortsighted and hardly warrants your inclusion in any debate.




I'm not saying they have been answered. But not doing anything because of this is akin to not treating someone with an illness, because we can't work out the exact cause.

That debate ended because I pointed out that China produces a greater percentage of its electricity through renewable means than does just about every western country.

But given my studies, I'm probably more than qualified to comment on this debate. But, thanks for that.


----------



## professor_frink (5 December 2007)

professor_frink said:


> On the subject of Kyoto, is there any evidence at this stage that suggest that it's actually working?
> 
> How on earth do they even measure it




--B-- has given his opinion on my question yesterday, I'd be interested to hear from some people from the other side of the argument.

Has Kyoto resulted in an overall reductions in emissions?

Has it allowed for greater development of renewable technologies so that even if we haven't reduced overall emissions, we have begun to walk down a path that will make the planet more sustainable?

And lastly, where does the money go from countries that are fined for not meeting targets? Does it go to the UN to finance renewable technologies to further the cause, or what?


----------



## --B-- (5 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> No, you are opposing methods of correction.




really? perhaps you can show me where ive 'opposed methods of correction'

i assume you believe kyoto is a method of 'correcting' the climate?

as ive stated numersous times, i 'question' whether anything we humans can or should do can 'correct' the climate and whether it needs correcting at all.



> I'm not saying they have been answered.




ahh, so we agree.



> But not doing anything because of this is akin to not treating someone with an illness, because we can't work out the exact cause.




sure. but arent we debating whether the 'illness' exists in the first place?



> That debate ended because I pointed out that China produces a greater percentage of its electricity through renewable means than does just about every western country.




did it? i thought it ended when you were shown to have a fairly rudimentary understanding of the kyoto protocol.



> But given my studies, I'm probably more than qualified to comment on this debate. But, thanks for that.




oh goody, you're an expert. please enlighten me then, why has the eaerth never been hotter than 1998 when we are supposedly in a period of catastrophic climate change / global warming?


----------



## --B-- (5 December 2007)

professor_frink said:


> And lastly, where does the money go from countries that are fined for not meeting targets? Does it go to the UN to finance renewable technologies to further the cause, or what?




countries who exceed their targets must by carbon "credits"

these credits are usually owned by investors or industrial polluters who have accumulated a surplus of credits.


----------



## chops_a_must (5 December 2007)

professor_frink said:


> --B-- has given his opinion on my question yesterday, I'd be interested to hear from some people from the other side of the argument.
> 
> Has Kyoto resulted in an overall reductions in emissions?



No, but it has slowed the growth.



professor_frink said:


> Has it allowed for greater development of renewable technologies so that even if we haven't reduced overall emissions, we have begun to walk down a path that will make the planet more sustainable?



Yes.


professor_frink said:


> And lastly, where does the money go from countries that are fined for not meeting targets? Does it go to the UN to finance renewable technologies to further the cause, or what?



Yes. As far as I'm aware it is used for clean energy development in countries that may not be able to afford it, but the overshoot of emissions must be made up for by credits. Whether that is by carbon sinks, or clean energy developments.


----------



## skint (5 December 2007)

--B-- said:


> 90% chance based on a guess is fairly flimsy. in any case, were not discussing whether to insure a house we're discussing the guesswork of the IPCC. do you think we can 'insure' the climate?
> .




Its pretty clear your not familiar with statistical analysis. Yeah, I know "lies, damn lies and statistics". The fact of the matter is statistics are vital component of just about every discipline from economics to medicine. In fact just about any discipline, including climate change. A 90% probability indicates that, at very least, there is a 90% chance that the conclusions drawn from the research, have not occured by chance. These figures aren't merely a guess pulled out of thin air. Your right in saying we're not talking about a house. It is something much more serious. Can you insure the climate? The insurance is taking measures to mitigate against the effects. 



--B-- said:


> the fact remains that global mean temperatures have not exceeded the highs of 1998. should we see increases if we are in fact in the middle of catastrophic global warming?




Are you able to read a graph? Since the late 70's, all years have been above average and rising, except for the 1998 anomoly which was much higher. 2007 looks likely to exceed even that year. Since 1980, all years have been hotter than all years prior to 1980, bar one. 



--B-- said:


> im not saying im incorrect or correct skint, merely stating the the sceince behind AGW is inconclusive at best. 'waking up and smelling the coffee' doesnt cut it for me.




Sometimes its best to go with overwhelming evidence, when 100% proof is not possible. While the laws of gravity, for example, are not proven, all observations, to date, are consistent with them. Are these laws guesswork?  I'll use another analogy. If you went to 100 doctors and 99 told you to take penicillin to cure a terminal illness, they may be wrong. Who do you listen to? The 99 expert opinions that are in agreement or the 1 dissenting expert opinion and your own inexpert opinion. Same situation with climate change.


----------



## chops_a_must (5 December 2007)

--B-- said:


> really? perhaps you can show me where ive 'opposed methods of correction'
> 
> i assume you believe kyoto is a method of 'correcting' the climate?
> 
> as ive stated numersous times, i 'question' whether anything we humans can or should do can 'correct' the climate and whether it needs correcting at all.



Your condescension towards any action could be seen as such.

No bit of paper can solve climate change. The framework written on it however, can help.

Don't you think we should at least try?



--B-- said:


> sure. but arent we debating whether the 'illness' exists in the first place?



It's pretty much a consensus now.




--B-- said:


> did it? i thought it ended when you were shown to have a fairly rudimentary understanding of the kyoto protocol.



No. You want China to cut emissions. I pointed out what I said above.



--B-- said:


> oh goody, you're an expert. please enlighten me then, why has the eaerth never been hotter than 1998 when we are supposedly in a period of catastrophic climate change / global warming?



Even within a trend, there are outliers.

We aren't in a period of catastrophic climate change, yet.

Unless there is something constructive you have to say, I'm certainly not going to respond. This kind of argument is 10 years old, and if we keep going over the same old ground, nothing gets done.


----------



## Rafa (5 December 2007)

There are only two things that can actuallly deliver on CO2 cuts...

1. rampant improvement in technology to harness the CLEAN enery nature provides, to power our lifestyle...

2. a reduction in our expectations of what the good life is... (i.e. if everyones aim is to live in Al Gore esq super mac mansions, that frankly, i don't care what any one says...but this problem ain't going to be solved).


To answer Prof Frink...

In terms of the Kyoto per se (and Al Gore)... they are both a joke.... but where their real value lies is in implanting the principle / thought seed into the minds of business and the gen public.

Because, in the end the problem will ONLY be solved when everyone, esp big business AND the general public, starts considering the CO2 impact when making decision.

Thanks to the seed sown by Kyoto and political oppurtunists like Al Gore, that is starting to happen now in a big way... and for something as serious as Global warming, it can't happen soon enough


----------



## --B-- (5 December 2007)

skint said:


> Its pretty clear your not familiar with statistical analysis. Yeah, I know "lies, damn lies and statistics". The fact of the matter is statistics are vital component of just about every discipline from economics to medicine. In fact just about any discipline, including climate change. A 90% probability indicates that, at very least, there is a 90% chance that the conclusions drawn from the research, have not occured by chance. These figures aren't merely a guess pulled out of thin air. Your right in saying we're not talking about a house. It is something much more serious. Can you insure the climate? The insurance is taking measures to mitigate against the effects.




but we're not talking about statistical analysis. Its computer modeling. they feed numbers into their hypothesised models. nothing more.


> Are you able to read a graph? Since the late 70's, all years have been above average and rising, except for the 1998 anomoly which was much higher. 2007 looks likely to exceed even that year. Since 1980, all years have been hotter than all years prior to 1980, bar one.




yes its amazing but the climate changes. 30 years of data in the grand scheme of things is not conclusive evidence. give me some time and ill fine some pretty graphs which go a little further back to illustrate the fact that the climate has and always will fluctuate.

im sure youre aware of the dreaded ice age predicted in the 70's.



> Sometimes its best to go with overwhelming evidence, when 100% proof is not possible.




i dont dispute this. i do dispute that overwhelming evidence exists that humans have caused 'global warming' through co2 emissions.



> While the laws of gravity, for example, are not proven, all observations, to date, are consistent with them.




but not all observations are consistent that humans have 'caused' global warming.



> Are these laws guesswork?  I'll use another analogy. If you went to 100 doctors and 99 told you to take penicillin to cure a terminal illness, they may be wrong. Who do you listen to? The 99 expert opinions that are in agreement or the 1 dissenting expert opinion and your own inexpert opinion. Same situation with climate change.



.
yes ive heard these analogies time and time again. but the question still remains,. does the illness exists in the first place.


----------



## The Once-ler (5 December 2007)

Global warming, peak oil, overpopulation and peak food seem to be all coming together into one giant problem.

Seeing more and more evidence that food production is peaking, and everything is related.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/poor-put-on-a-starvation-diet/2007/12/04/1196530679058.html



"A revolution in world food prices driven by population growth, economic development, climate change and biofuels is set to make life even worse for the world's poorest people.

For decades food production has outstripped population growth and real food prices have declined, but the world appears to be swinging back into an era where demand will be greater than supply for years to come.

A report on the food predicament says the world's undernourished will still number 772 million in 2020 and higher food prices will cause the poor to shift to even less-balanced diets, with adverse impacts on health in the short and long run. In sub-Saharan Africa, the number of undernourished is expected to rise from 273 million in 2020 to 410 million by 2080.

A global temperature increase of more than 3 degrees could increase food prices by 40 per cent.

As they have become increasingly wealthy, people in developing nations such as China have already helped drive the price of food commodities such as wheat to record levels as they have diversified their diet and started eating more grain-hungry meat and dairy products.

Since 2000 dairy prices have tripled and beef prices have almost doubled, says The World Food Situation:"




There is only one real reason for whats going on, and that's just too many people.


----------



## skint (5 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Even within a trend, there are outliers.




Touche and also a lot more succint than my post. Even one of the dopiest galahs on the planet, George dubya, who has also been one of the greatest cynics, now concedes the human involvement of humans on CC. For mine, those that are still a decade or two behind in the debate, are probably further down the evolutionary tree than ol' mate George. Speaking of evolution, I wonder what the chances are that --B-- believes evolution is a beat up and that we've only been around for 5-10000 years. Hmm...


----------



## --B-- (5 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Your condescension towards any action could be seen as such.




ok, so i havent.



> No bit of paper can solve climate change. The framework written on it however, can help.




sure.. i dont think kyoto is one such piece of paper.



> Don't you think we should at least try?




try what? to 'fix' the climate? 

anything that reduces pollution is a good thing. ive never said otherwise.



> It's pretty much a consensus now.




oh ok, "pretty much".... sounds a lot like the convincing 90% guesswork figures...




> Even within a trend, there are outliers.




sure, like the last 30 years? or is the 'trend' only allowed to be 30 years?



> We aren't in a period of catastrophic climate change, yet.




agreed.



> Unless there is something constructive you have to say, I'm certainly not going to respond. This kind of argument is 10 years old, and if we keep going over the same old ground, nothing gets done.




i asked you a direct question which you could not answer. my posts have only been constructive and i have not used petty insults such as yourself and others.


----------



## --B-- (5 December 2007)

skint said:


> Touche and also a lot more succint than my post. Even one of the dopiest galahs on the planet, George dubya, who has also been one of the greatest cynics, now concedes the human involvement of humans on CC. For mine, those that are still a decade or two behind in the debate, are probably further down the evolutionary tree than ol' mate George. Speaking of evolution, I wonder what the chances are that --B-- believes evolution is a beat up and that we've only been around for 5-10000 years. Hmm...




lol.. more of the "if you dont agree with me youre an idiot" lines that you guys are famous for..

tell me: is 30 years the only trend you guys rely on? can the past 30 years (when we look at the lifetime of the earth) be considered an outlier?


----------



## skint (5 December 2007)

--B-- said:


> lol.. more of the "if you dont agree with me youre an idiot" lines that you guys are famous for..
> 
> tell me: is 30 years the only trend you guys rely on? can the past 30 years (when we look at the lifetime of the earth) be considered an outlier?




Here's a brief article that investigated greenhouse gases over a much longer period. When a lot of research looking into a problem from completely different angles reaches the same conclusion sooner or later, its wise to take notice.


CO2 'highest for 650,000 years'  
By Richard Black 
Environment Correspondent, BBC News website  


Current levels of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere are higher now than at any time in the past 650,000 years. 

That is the conclusion of new European studies looking at ice taken from 3km below the surface of Antarctica. 

The scientists say their research shows present day warming to be exceptional. 

Other research, also published in the journal Science, suggests that sea levels may be rising twice as fast now as in previous centuries. 

Treasure dome 

The evidence on atmospheric concentrations comes from an Antarctic region called Dome Concordia (Dome C). 


Epica drills have extracted ice from 3km under the Antarctic surface 
Over a five year period commencing in 1999, scientists working with the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica (Epica) have drilled 3,270m into the Dome C ice, which equates to drilling nearly 900,000 years back in time. 

Gas bubbles trapped as the ice formed yield important evidence of the mixture of gases present in the atmosphere at that time, and of temperature. 

"One of the most important things is we can put current levels of carbon dioxide and methane into a long-term context," said project leader Thomas Stocker from the University of Bern, Switzerland. 

"We find that CO2 is about 30% higher than at any time, and methane 130% higher than at any time; and the rates of increase are absolutely exceptional: for CO2, 200 times faster than at any time in the last 650,000 years." 

Stable relationship 

Last year, the Epica team released its first data. The latest two papers analyse gas composition and temperature dating back 650,000 years. 

This extends the picture drawn by another Antarctic ice core taken near Lake Vostok which looked 440,000 years into the past. 

The extra data is crucial because around 420,000 years there appears to have been a significant shift in the Earth's long-term climate patterns. 

Before and after this date, the planet went through 100,000 year cycles of alternating cold glacial and warm interglacial periods. 


The base at Dome Concordia 
But around the 420,000 year mark, the precise pattern changed, with the contrast between warm and cold conditions becoming much more marked. 

The Dome C core gives data from six cycles of glaciation and warming; two from before this change, four from after. 

"We found a very tight relationship between CO2 and temperature even before 420,000 years," said Professor Stocker. 

"The fact that the relationship holds across the transition between climatic regimes is a very strong indication of the important role of CO2 in climate regulation." 

Epica scientists will now try to extend their analysis further back in time. 

Water rise 

Another study reported in the same journal claims that for the last 150 years, sea levels have been rising twice as fast as in previous centuries. 

Using data from tidal gauges and reviewing findings from many previous studies, US researchers have constructed a new sea level record covering the last 100 million years. 

They calculate the present rate of rise at 2mm per year. 

"The main thing that's changed since the 19th Century and the beginning of modern observation has been the widespread increase in fossil fuel use and more greenhouse gases," said Kenneth Miller from Rutgers University. 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the body which collates scientific evidence for policymakers, concludes that sea level rose by 1-2mm per year over the last century, and will rise by a total of anything up to 88cm during the course of this century.


----------



## professor_frink (5 December 2007)

<puts on mod hat>

It would be good if this debate doesn't turn into a personal argument between people with conflicting opinions. I know it's hard to do, as it seems to be the standard form of debate going around for this topic the world over presently, but it would be great if it doesn't happen here.

Cheers

<takes off mod hat>


----------



## professor_frink (5 December 2007)

Rafa, chops,--B--,

Thanks for you comments to my questions earlier


----------



## --B-- (5 December 2007)

oop. image is too big:

it can be found here: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.png

shows a pretty clear trend


----------



## --B-- (5 December 2007)

professor_frink said:


> It would be good if this debate doesn't turn into a personal argument between people with conflicting opinions. I know it's hard to do, as it seems to be the standard form of debate going around for this topic the world over presently, but it would be great if it doesn't happen here.
> 
> Cheers




Agreed. Cheers frink.


----------



## skint (5 December 2007)

Exactly, --B--. 
The chances of the current spike in temperature and CO2 levels occuring at exactly the same time as the world industrialises is pretty remote given that it occurs only once every 100000 years or so.


----------



## --B-- (5 December 2007)

what? 

the spike seen at year dot fits pretty perfectly into the 100,000 year trend.


----------



## chops_a_must (5 December 2007)

--B-- said:


> i asked you a direct question which you could not answer. my posts have only been constructive and i have not used petty insults such as yourself and others.




I did answer it.


----------



## wayneL (5 December 2007)

Rafa said:


> In terms of the Kyoto per se (and Al Gore)... they are both a joke.... but where their real value lies is in implanting the principle / thought seed into the minds of business and the gen public.
> 
> Because, in the end the problem will ONLY be solved when everyone, esp big business AND the general public, starts considering the CO2 impact when making decision.




The big problem here is one of cynicism.

To paraphrase a comment on another forum: "When I see Al Gore living in a 14 square, energy self sufficient house and driving around in a hybrid/riding a bicycle/etc., I'll start recycling my aluminium cans."

It seems those bleating most about it are doing the least. Observing this, Joe Sixpack thinks - WTF? The Commodore and my dozen beer bottles a week spew out less co2 than Al Gore's (et al) entourage of limousines and first class travel. Add to that the rampant world, fossil fuel dependent economic growth and one cannot blame Mr Sixpack for thinking - Eat, drink & be merry, for tomorrow we die.

What we need is some real leadership on the issue, rather than tricks with stats and numbers... and nonsense.


----------



## --B-- (5 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> I did answer it.




so do you agree that the past 30 years of warming can be seen as an outlier or anomaly when compared to the past 100, 500 or 500,000 years?


----------



## skint (5 December 2007)

--B-- said:


> so do you agree that the past 30 years of warming can be seen as an outlier or anomaly when compared to the past 100, 500 or 500,000 years?




If you go over the David Attenborough video posted earlier by 2020, it summarises well (although only a summary) that when other events are factored in, it is clearly not just an anomoly. I'm still waiting to hear your response to a question that has been posed to you many times. What about if the scientists are right and you are wrong, in that if we neglect to act now, serious consequences will transpire? A second question. If we're not to take heed of climatologists' advice regarding climate change, who should we listen to?


----------



## wayneL (5 December 2007)

skint said:


> A second question. If we're not to take heed of climatologists' advice regarding climate change, who should we listen to?



It's not a point of listening. Lots of folks are listening, and worrying, and preaching... but what are they doing? Nothing! (Unless there's a profit in it)

It's time for action. Stop building Mc-freaking-mansions, stop buying Toorak tractors to drop the kids off at school, chuck on a jumper instead of turning up the heating (or air conditioning as the case may be), think about the products and their packaging we buy in terms of energy expenditure... cripes, even get off our fat freakin' @sses and try walking to the shops or riding the treadly, instead of driving.

Just a few minor ideas that could make a difference. Not hard, and within the scope of everyone.


----------



## --B-- (5 December 2007)

skint said:


> If you go over the David Attenborough video posted earlier by 2020, it summarises well (although only a summary) that when other events are factored in, it is clearly not just an anomoly.




but doesnt the graph i linked above show that we are still clearly traveling within the 100,000 years trend cycle?



> I'm still waiting to hear your response to a question that has been posed to you many times. What about if the scientists are right and you are wrong,  in that if we neglect to act now, serious consequences will transpire? A second question. If we're not to take heed of climatologists' advice regarding climate change, who should we listen to?




firstly, does questioning the validity of an argument or issue put me in the 'against' basket? 

secondly, ive not said we shouldnt 'act' now. i dont dispute that moving to cleaner or renewable energies is a great way to go. however until these are proven sources and economically viable i think further research may be required.

all along all i have been doing is questioning the extent to which humans have caused the supposed 'global warming'. 

in any case, for the debates sake, what is meant by 'act' now. shutting down coal plants? moving to green energy that are not yet shown to be a fully viable alternative thus forcing energy prices through the roof for many who cannot afford it. denying developing nations cheap energy? paying 'fines' to other polluters and investors? what is it?


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 December 2007)

B - you don't even realise when you contradict yourself ,  eg 


> No bit of paper can solve climate change. The framework written on it however, can help.




B, your response :-  "sure.. i dont think kyoto is one such piece of paper."



> Don't you think we should at least try?




B, your response :-  "try what? to 'fix' the climate?   anything that reduces pollution is a good thing. ive never said otherwise."

ok, Let's take those last couple of sentences,  
"anything that reduces pollution is a good thing. I've never said otherwise".    

since Kyoto reduces co2 and other pollution 
you agree to it I presume.
Or (worst case) you agree with action even if manmade contribution to GW is unproven?

PS I'd be interested in your evidence that we will be paying penalty and hence tax in Aust - ramping is frowned on remember.  

PS or were you saying there's a 90% chance that we'd be paying tax 
(or 10% chance??)


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 December 2007)

Wayne
You say you are a skeptic on manmade global warming
i.e. that man is quite likely not contributing to the problem

yet you then proceed to tell us you are doing all you can to reduce your contribution. 

At least you are giving the world (and the scientific argument)  "the benefit of the doubt".  
(The doubt can be quantified by others - call it 10% doubt  ref IPCC) 

PS when you turn this into an argument that the "super-haves" are ignoring GW, then why shouldn't "we"  - you reinforce the argument that Aus has to avoid being classed with USA and this class of selfish nerds. (agreed?)


----------



## --B-- (5 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> B - you don't even realise when you contradict yourself ,  eg
> 
> B, your response :-  "sure.. i dont think kyoto is one such piece of paper."




um,,, huh? i suggest you re-read if youre still struggling. its perfectly clear what i was saying 2020.

and in any case, when someone resorts to arguing about semantics its usually a pretty clear indication they have no argument left.



> B, your response :-  "try what? to 'fix' the climate?   anything that reduces pollution is a good thing. ive never said otherwise."
> 
> ok, Let's take those last couple of sentences,
> "anything that reduces pollution is a good thing. I've never said otherwise".
> ...



kyoto doesnt 'reduce' co2 and other pollution.

it aims to reduce co2 emissions and 5 other greenhouse gases by enticing countries to commit to targets. if they dont meet these targets they must by 'credits' including extra for penalties. 

the fact that many countries are no where near their targets suggests its not exactly achieving its aim.



> Or (worst case) you agree with action even if manmade contribution to GW is unproven?



i suppose that depends what the 'action' is.



> PS I'd be interested in your evidence that we will be paying penalty and hence tax in Aust - ramping is frowned on remember.



sure, here you are:



> *"We are currently likely to ... overshoot our Kyoto target by one per cent,"* Mr Rudd told ABC radio today.
> 
> Mr Rudd said the penalty would be set out under the post-Kyoto deal that kicks in after 2012.
> 
> * It would include a commitment to a further reduction - 60 million tonnes - in carbon emissions plus a 30 per cent penalty added to the subsequent commitment target.*



http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22860017-12377,00.html

60 million tonnes at the current CER cost of around 17 EUR is approx 1.6bn AUD. Thats without adding the 30% penalty.


----------



## wayneL (5 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Wayne
> You say you are a skeptic on manmade global warming
> i.e. that man is quite likely not contributing to the problem
> 
> ...



No.

I'm pointing out human nature... how folks are thinking about this.

I am still a skeptic regarding *A*GW, but as stated before there is a larger problem of general pollution and environmental rape and pillage. My own actions are primarily conducted with that imperative, with the possibility of AGW as secondary... and ferchrissake, we really don't need all the BS we spend money on.

It's all "Status Anxiety" as per more ancient threads on this site... buying crap we don't really need (hence overconsumption), with money we don't have (hence credit bubble), impress people we don't like (hence general unhappiness in a prosperous first world).

... another thing that is related, I hate critters suffering/going extinct to feed said Anxiety. That's just ****ing criminal.


----------



## professor_frink (5 December 2007)

wayneL said:


> ......
> 
> It's all "Status Anxiety" as per more ancient threads on this site... buying crap we don't really need (hence overconsumption), with money we don't have (hence credit bubble), impress people we don't like (hence general unhappiness in a prosperous first world)..............




:iagree:

well said Wayne


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 December 2007)

--B-- said:


> So, St Kev has bowed to "popular" public opinion and jumped in to sign Kyoto.
> 
> As Australia now seems destined to exceed its targets under kyoto by about 1 percent, we can all look forward to paying about 1.6bn in fines



hey B
that's not proof we'll be paying lol
that's at best only 90% sure 
(just using your logic here)


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 December 2007)

wayneL said:


> ... another thing that is related, I hate critters suffering/going extinct to feed said Anxiety. That's just ****ing criminal.



I agree also
 trouble is , B  could give a shinbone  (or could he - who knows)


----------



## --B-- (5 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> hey B
> that's not proof we'll be paying lol
> that's at best only 90% sure
> (just using your logic here)




youre right. as CERs increase in value (which the inevitably will) the fines will probably amount for quite a bit more.

thanks for pointing that out 2020.


----------



## --B-- (5 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> I agree also
> trouble is , B  could give a shinbone  (or could he - who knows)




wow.

so i question the extent of AGW and this translates into me not caring when species become extinct??

nice way to jump to conclusions.

the thing is, whenever i, or anyone else raises VALID questions as to the extent of AGW, the global warming cheer squad automatically assume we are evil, insensitive and blood thirsty. 

its amazing that any rational and well thought out debate is so frowned upon and is a clear example firstly, of the hysteria generated around this issue and secondly, of the attitudes of those championing the cause.


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 December 2007)

--B-- said:


> wow.
> 
> so i question the extent of AGW and this translates into me not caring when species become extinct??
> 
> ...



careful B
 you'll end up with almost the same viewpoint as one of those greenies you find so objectionable .


----------



## Buddy (5 December 2007)

Now people (--B-- & 2020) I have a serious question here. Earlier in this thread B talked about fines being imposed if a country does not meet target. I checked the protocol and can find mention of imposing higher limits if a reduction does not take place, but where does it mention "fines"?  Also, what I want to know is........ 
Who is doing the "fining"?
Where does the money go?
What is that money used for?
I have tried to find info on this subject but have not found anything yet.


----------



## --B-- (5 December 2007)

Buddy said:


> Now people (--B-- & 2020) I have a serious question here. Earlier in this thread B talked about fines being imposed if a country does not meet target. I checked the protocol and can find mention of imposing higher limits if a reduction does not take place, but where does it mention "fines"?  Also, what I want to know is........
> Who is doing the "fining"?
> Where does the money go?
> What is that money used for?
> I have tried to find info on this subject but have not found anything yet.




well 'fines' is one way of putting it.

essentially the countries are forced to buy carbon credits (CERs) for the amount they have exceeded their targets. They also then face 'penalties' on top of these amounts.



> Under Kyoto, governments create a limited number of permits they grant freely to industrial polluters. If the CO2 created is more than the amount the nation pledged not to exceed, the country must buy permits to make up the difference -- essentially a penalty for discharging too much.
> 
> Under the Kyoto Protocol to the UN Climate Change treaty, endorsed by 175 nations and organizations, countries that exceed their emission caps must buy credits in the market. The sellers are typically investors or industrial polluters that have accumulated a surplus of credits, also called permits.



a good article is here:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=akEM_x0ximjk&refer=japan

basically there is no stipulation to use any of the proceeds from the buying and selling of CERs to finance renewable energy R&D or anything remotely positive to 'fix' the climate.


----------



## Buddy (5 December 2007)

Thanks B, I've never really bothered to go into the detail of how the protocol works.  I'm a lot clearer on that bit now. And the Bloomberg article explains it very well.

This is only slightly off topic but still relevant..........
Hmmmmm!  This is going to get very interesting though.
Seems to me that some serious money is going to be made here on the CER trading market. It's not going to take much to "go wrong" before the CERs go through the roof. If I had the balls I would probably buy every CER I could lay my hands on, and in 10 years time just call me Rockefeller.  Even better than buying FMG at 20 cents!

So if OZ doesnt meet the targets I guess the taxpayer is going to foot the bill.  That sure is going to make that wa...er Bob Brown, Mr Popular number one guy.


----------



## --B-- (5 December 2007)

Buddy said:


> Thanks B, I've never really bothered to go into the detail of how the protocol works.  I'm a lot clearer on that bit now. And the Bloomberg article explains it very well.




no worries.

its interesting how many people (and often vocal supporters of kyoto) really dont know all that much about it.



> This is only slightly off topic but still relevant..........
> Hmmmmm!  This is going to get very interesting though.
> Seems to me that some serious money is going to be made here on the CER trading market. It's not going to take much to "go wrong" before the CERs go through the roof. If I had the balls I would probably buy every CER I could lay my hands on, and in 10 years time just call me Rockefeller.  Even better than buying FMG at 20 cents!




indeed.



> So if OZ doesnt meet the targets I guess the taxpayer is going to foot the bill.  That sure is going to make that wa...er Bob Brown, Mr Popular number one guy.




it certainly looks likely, if we follow the lead of other countries, that any CERs we are forced to buy will be paid for by the taxpayer.

Little betty down the road who recycles everything and turns off all her lights will get a rude surprise in her next electricity bill...


----------



## Rafa (5 December 2007)

i think the 1.6billion is a side issue... the previous govt promised 10bill in 6 minutes or something like that...

and all that money went straight into the pocket of people to spend even more... which not only added to inflation, but also to CO2 emissions with all that extra consumption 


The ultimate contradiction: If everyone is rich enough to afford to pay for CO2... then how is that going to reduce CO2 use 


Therein lies the real problems of global warming... its is directly related to the amount of credit (un-earned cash) flowing thru the economies of this world.

A good recession will solve a lot of the worlds problems, included Global Warming! What this addiction to growth and cheap credit has meant is that we have managed to expound into the atmosphere CO2 by 2007 which (assuming normal growth) would not have been emitted till probably 2050... (giving the earth plenty of time to absorb it naturally).

Thats why this whole thing is a sham... Global warming is merely the by product of our dogmatic belief in constant growth and an addiction to cheap credit.

Take away cheap credit, you take away Global Warming...


Alas, it looks like the US Feds are going to reduce interest rates yet again!!!


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 December 2007)

Buddy said:


> So if OZ doesnt meet the targets I guess the taxpayer is going to foot the bill.  That sure is going to make that wa...er Bob Brown, Mr Popular number one guy.



Why not think positive - try following Arnie Schwarzenneger rather than the Howard/Bushes of the world ( of which there are two, both thankfully heading for political extinction)  

You blokes have to sort out your own warring halves - to try to help save the planet, species, future generations etc ...

or not.


----------



## Buddy (5 December 2007)

What on earth are you talking about 2020? Warring halves, whatever that is???
I firstly asked a question and B was polite enough to give me an informed good answer.
I made no comment about saving the planet, blah, blah........ (your words mate not mine). 
In fact you dont even know what I think or believe in. I have never told you anything about that!  All I did was make a comment about how popular Brown is going to be if taxes go up to pay for CERs. If you deny that then you're an idiot and have no capacity for analysis.
I dont follow anyone mate, I am my own man and I make my own decisions based on my own objective analysis.
Also, I have no intention of answering your dumb ass questionaire. And I'm starting to think you are full of it 2020. And I've noticed that you cant even take onboard a joke .... too serious mate.  
Obviously you know more about everything than the rest of us mere mortals on the planet.


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 December 2007)

Buddy said:


> What on earth are you talking about 2020? Warring halves, whatever that is???
> I firstly asked a question and B was polite enough to give me an informed good answer.
> I made no comment about saving the planet, blah, blah........ (your words mate not mine).
> 
> ...



buddy
overreact if you wish...
vote on the questionaire or not - up to you 
side with whichever side you like - it's a free world.  

PS If the greenies make a difference and make positive changes  (and I side with them) - then you and -B- will still be welcome in that better world - won;t even say " I told you so " 

I concede I included you in the plural of "you blokes" should sort out your warring halves - meant more for  -B- than you agreed.  He's the one who doesn't want to spend anything yet he's also keen to somehow save the planet/species.  

Penny Wong announced yesterday she's trying to quantify the 1% etc - but -B- reckons he knows already - my comment there is "wait till we have to pay anything before you jump onto yet more scare campaigns.   I think I'm all "scare-camaigned out"



			
				buddy-take#1 said:
			
		

> That sure is going to make that wa...er Bob Brown, Mr Popular number one guy.






			
				buddy=take#2 said:
			
		

> All I did was make a comment about how popular Brown is going to be




nice try mate.


----------



## gilbo (5 December 2007)

It's amazing really how polarised these arguments can get when the evidence for or against is really quite flimsy.

--B-- made a good point earlier about computer modelling v statistical analysis. When a majority of computer models show that temperatures are on the rise you have to be very careful about the conclusions that you draw from this. I think people become romanticised by the fact that it is, apparently, a computer that reaches these conclusions. It is not. All a computer does is calculate very fast. The models used are devised by humans - the very humans who don't really understand how it all hangs together in the first place.

Perhaps I can take weather prediction as an example. There's not very many of us (making a statement on behalf of a load of people I've never met is probably a bit of a stretch but I may be on safe ground!) that will take much heed of a weather forecast that is predicting a week in advance. Yet, we hang on the every word of someone who reckons they can predict the climate 20 years hence.

And, before everyone jumps down my throat about weather & climate being 2 different things (they are) they are very similar in 1 important respect - they are determined by a vast array of variables that we have only just begun to understand (that's why the weather forecast is off so often).

So, if you're still awake (!) my conclusion is that a lot of potential warming scenarios are just based on guesswork and we should be very sure what it is the scientists are actually concluding and the probability of it happening.

Someone mentioned a 90% probability earlier in this thread. I doubt we can be anywhere near that certain on anything to do with the climate. Perhaps if scientists were a little more realistic with their conclusions I may be a little more likely to take notice.


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> That debate ended because I pointed out that China produces a greater percentage of its electricity through renewable means than does just about every western country.



And I'm real sure the conservationists would support Western countries building massive hydro schemes just like China.

Sustainability brilliance it may be, but the focus generally isn't on sustainability but rather on conservation which is entirely different.

Meanwhile, China uses one third of the world's coal and builds another 1000 MW coal-fired plant every week. Each year China adds more coal-fired generation than we have in total.

I'm not saying don't cut emissions. That is exactly what we ought to be doing as a priority IMO. But it requires an incredible amount of wishful thinking to believe that global emissions are headed any way but up with or without Kyoto. We're fiddling around the edges at best.


----------



## numbercruncher (5 December 2007)

China wont revalue her Yuan so others can compete, lets Kyoto tax the goods to even up the ball game


----------



## chops_a_must (5 December 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> And I'm real sure the conservationists would support Western countries building massive hydro schemes just like China.
> 
> Sustainability brilliance it may be, but the focus generally isn't on sustainability but rather on conservation which is entirely different.
> 
> ...




Yeah, that's another debate entirely. I was going to reply earlier to a post of yours on the same matter.

The problem amongst green movements is the debate between what I deem to be "practical environmentalists" and "conservationist environmentalists". It's what makes the greens party here so inconsistent, because they are largely a conservationist party. Whereas in Europe for instance, greens parties are dominated by what I would call the practical environmentalists.

I've had many arguments with fellow greenies about the china hydro schemes. From my point of view, they really don't have a choice. And I think I'm correct in that point of view. When 3/4 of the marathon runners die next year, it should become obvious. Of course it's a totally different view point of you are totally conservation biased. I certainly am in many cases i.e. Barrow Island or Gorgon, Ludlow Forrest, green belting Perth. But it is a matter of priorities. If reducing CO2 emissions is the priority, conservation is always secondary. Obviously, I would be classing myself as a practical environmentalist.

From my perspective, I would love to see Tasmania become the power generation hub of Australia. It has everything renewable power generation needs. Lots of water, wind and NW Tassie looks good for hot rocks even. This is an idea the conservationists have, and will, hold things up.

In short, in Australia, I would support more hydro - all things being equal. But it appears there may only be a handful of rivers still suitable. Certainly there aren't any left here in WA. So on a cost by cost basis, I think in Australia at least, the money would be better spent elsewhere. And apart from exceptional circumstances, I don't generally have a problem with hydro worldwide.


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> .. I don't generally have a problem with hydro worldwide.



I don't have a problem with nuclear m8 - as they say, "negligible" co2 - mountains of power - plenty of countries using it already (france 75% etc ) - but everyone wants to scaremonger that one for all it's worth


----------



## chops_a_must (5 December 2007)

--B-- said:


> so do you agree that the past 30 years of warming can be seen as an outlier or anomaly when compared to the past 100, 500 or 500,000 years?




Or it could just have been a continuation of a trend that was hidden by rising sulfur levels.

Like I have said, I'm not convinced of the human impact on global warming. The Earth has been at these levels (or approaching them) many times... and obviously much higher prior to complex life formation, but, from my understanding, this is the only time we have seen such a large rise without significant volcanic activity.

Without context, it is not an anomaly; with context, I would say it is.


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 December 2007)

Part of the reason for doubt is the misinformation put out by the likes of Durkins ( "Great Global Warming Swindle"). 

Worth a watch if you missed it on ABC.  

 Great Global Warming Swindle ABC Debates Part 3/9

This is the Australian Broadcasting Corporations presentation and debate of Martin Durkins documentary, The Great Global Warming Swindle. 



> Tony Jones :- "You claim that the period between the 9th  and 13 th Centuries was hotter than today - let's look at that ....
> 
> "Durkins :- "Before the little ice age we find a balmy golden period when temperatures are higher than they are today, a  time known to climatologists as the Medieval Warm Period "
> 
> ...




PS note that it is currently HOTTER than the medieval warm period. (and rapidly heading "north")


----------



## wayneL (6 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Part of the reason for doubt is the misinformation put out by the likes of Durkins



The other part of the reason for doubt is the misinformation put out by the likes of Al Bore.


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 December 2007)

whichever way you look at it Wayne, Aus and USA are pretty damned selfish yes?


----------



## ghotib (6 December 2007)

The IPCC reports discuss the limitations and uncertainties in their science, and they're on the Web and freely available. 

This link is to a list of PDF documents from the most recent (2007) report. I think one of the most useful documents is the FAQ (4th link in the list), which includes questions and answers about the climate models and human influence effects we've talked about in this thread. 

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html

This is a higher level link to lists of documents from all three working groups of the IPCC. It looks like the third group (Mitigation of Climate Change) is the most directly related to the Kyoto Protocol and its future.

http://www.ipcc-data.org/ddc_ar4pubs.html

I think it becomes clear as soon as you read a couple of these documents that their conclusions can't just be dismissed as guesswork, special interests, incomplete, or whatever. The conclusions can and should continue to be tested, but there's more than enough certainty for urgent action.

Ghoti


----------



## Scuba (6 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> whichever way you look at it Wayne, Aus and USA are pretty damned selfish yes?



2020, I looked only at the map, is it my screen or did the U.A.E. (Dubai) get the red?

I wouldn't be at all surprised after visiting there in 2000 before the Olympics... I remember seeing Burg Al Arab as we were driving there from about 20 Ks away, the talk around the sheesha as we drank beer was about how gaudy the lighting was and that at the time there were 3 chopper pilots checked out to land on the cantilever but only 2 had the b..s to do it....


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Yeah, that's another debate entirely. I was going to reply earlier to a post of yours on the same matter.
> 
> The problem amongst green movements is the debate between what I deem to be "practical environmentalists" and "conservationist environmentalists". It's what makes the greens party here so inconsistent, because they are largely a conservationist party. Whereas in Europe for instance, greens parties are dominated by what I would call the practical environmentalists.
> 
> ...



I'm pretty much the same. I would say I'm actually somewhat more hard line than most when it comes to sustainability. Never had any car larger than 4 cylinder, been recycling and using fluoro lights as long as I can remember (before kerb side collection and when energy saving globes weren't sold in supermarkets or hardware stores). Same with a lot of things.

But anyone who's read my posts on ASF would know that I am absolutely pro-dams for power. And the reason is simple. Hydro is the only large scale, proven technology we have that can balance the power system without using fossil fuels or nuclear.

Wind is intermittent. So is solar. So is tidal, wave and so on. Add any of those to a thermal (coal, gas etc) power system and all you'll do is save a bit of fuel. They don't add significant firm peak capacity when it's needed and for this reason we still need to build just as many power stations. But, and here's the nasty bit, those coal and gas-fired plants will be less efficient at widely varying output in a grid with a lot of intermittent generation. 

So at best, adding solar, wind etc to the grid enables us to save a modest amount of fuel. But we'll never get anywhere near "clean" energy doing that. All things considered, we'll be lucky to get a 25% overall cut in emissions intensity, something that will be offset before we can achieve it by rising demand.

Not so with hydro however. Build a wind farm in Tas and integrate its operation with the existing hydro plants. What that turbine becomes now is an actual alternative to building another type of power station. That massively improves the economics of wind, solar etc since just saving a bit of coal isn't saving much money. But avoiding building a new power station saves a fortune.

Obviously there are limits to this. We'll need more hydro to balance more wind etc but the two work very nicely together (likewise solar etc).

And another benefit is efficiency. A hydro turbine is nearly perfect in terms of efficiency. Very little waste heat is produced (even with a 100 year old unit simple air cooling with the power station windows open is sufficient and new units are much more efficient than that.) And more to the point, hydro turbines can handle very rapid changes in load efficiently.

If necessary, you can ramp hydro up, down, up again and then completely off all in a matter of minutes. Actually, it can be done in seconds if it's really necessary. Output can be all over the place to balance the wind, solar etc. 

Try doing that with coal and, well, good luck! At best you'll end up with a massive waste of coal and thus no real benefit from the solar, wind etc.

So if we're ever going to have a predominantly renewable grid, as opposed to a predominantly coal-fired one with a bit of renewable tacked on, we'll need hydro for storage. That's no secret, indeed it's one of the better known things about hydro power, and those who take the staunch "No Dams" stance know full well it's fossil fuels forever under their plan.

Technically, there's no reason why we can't have a 100% renewable grid (maybe keep a few coal plants as cheap backup in case of unforeseen breakdowns etc) if we combine the right technologies. Solar, geothermal, hydro and a bit of wind for the energy component. Geothermal for the baseload capacity, hydro (pumped and natural) for the intermediate and peaking capacity. All very viable technically.

But take out the hydro bit and there goes large scale reliance on the intermittent sources.

So the point is about storage rather than actual generation. Sure, we've got more undeveloped hydro in Australia than most realise but that alone won't be anywhere near enough. But fully integrate that with the other renewables and use it to firm the supply and then we're talking about serious power and something the coal industry won't like.

Ever wondered why coal companies don't seem worried about wind etc? Quite simply, it's not a real threat to their business whilst we don't have large scale storage. So the coal companies will quite likely fight dams (they've been involved in that one before, albeit in a low key manner), but not wind or solar. 

If you make the energy 20% cleaner then we're never going to get a 50% cut in emissions, especially not with a constant growth economy. Make it virtually emissions free and then we'll see some serious results.

All that said, the bushwalking side of me ain't keen on dams. Not in the slightest. But I'd rather a few more lakes and a shift to predominantly renewable energy than a cooked planet. But, and I can't stress this strongly enough, it has to be dams integrated with other renewables for it to work in Australia. Dams alone won't come anywhere near to being enough.


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> I don't have a problem with nuclear m8 - as they say, "negligible" co2 - mountains of power - plenty of countries using it already (france 75% etc ) - but everyone wants to scaremonger that one for all it's worth



Worldwide, nuclear and hydro are on a comparable scale and ranked 2nd and 3rd respectively in terms of total generation. Coal is 1st, gas 4th and oil 5th. All the others, are, well, "others" and not really too significant.

As for scaremongering, I think you'll find the same people who ironically oppose climate change are largely responsible for that one.


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 December 2007)

Scuba said:


> 2020, I looked only at the map, is it my screen or did the U.A.E. (Dubai) get the red?
> 
> I wouldn't be at all surprised after visiting there in 2000 before the Olympics... I remember seeing Burg Al Arab as we were driving there from about 20 Ks away, the talk around the sheesha as we drank beer was about how gaudy the lighting was and that at the time there were 3 chopper pilots checked out to land on the cantilever but only 2 had the b..s to do it....



scuba, yep - bright red around there 

Snow skiing in the desert as they say.
Then again - it gets to 50 degC 

And it was (only, lol) 45degC in Tennant Ck the other day - and the swimming pool was packed shoulder to shoulder with kids cooling off


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 December 2007)

Further to previous...
check out "the poor countries of Africa" 

About 30% of the total list ( 5 jpeg photos) use less than one tenth the co2equivalent that Australia uses.

(look at the eighth column which counts 1 down to 185 - and the co2e in the righthandmost column - 
we use 25.6tonnes of co2e without land use change
Only 119 countries use more than 10% of that



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GHG_per_capita_2000_no_LUC.svg
CAIT have some good stuff


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 December 2007)

Walked into a shopping centre today. Parked the car (car park is outside not underground etc) and just walked in as anyone else would do.

And there it was. A great big plasma screen that tells me... wait for it... what the weather outside is doing. Nope, not the weather straight from the Bureau but just outside the shops. 

Now, given that I'd just walked in from outside I didn't really need to know what the weather was doing. In the unlikely event that I had forgotten, I could simply walk 10 metres back out the door and see for myself what it's like outside.

But someone decided that we need to use a few hundred Watts for what is effectively a thermometer. Hmm... 

Meanwhile, my thermometer at home records both maximum and minimum temperature both inside and outside. I got it about 15 years ago and haven't needed to change the battery yet. Obviously it uses a lot less energy than that plasma screen and thus is just recording the temperature rather than trying to increase it. 

Oh well, I guess it beats the idea of a plasma screen with a camera outside as a "window".


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 December 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> A great big plasma screen that tells me... wait for it... what the weather outside is doing. Nope, not the weather straight from the Bureau but just outside the shops.



like the Irish weather forecaster, balanced on his window sill, one hand in , one out...

"on the one hand it seems to be dry, but on the other hand it feels like it might rain"....


----------



## chops_a_must (7 December 2007)

Totally agree Smurf.

The only comment I will make, is about wind. There are exceptions in terms of its consistency. WA is a great example of this. I am yet to be in Freo in the afternoon in my twenty something years of being, where there hasn't been a strong and unceasing breeze. And the Freo doctor comes in at exactly the right time for peak power generation, especially in summer when it is needed most.

It's the same in Geraldton and all the way up the coast. The trees in Gero grow horizontally for crise sakes lol! Wayne knows that only too well. I've posted pics of them before, and I would assume it was the same in Fremantle with the trees before they were cleared as well.

But WA is probably the best example of an exception with wind...


----------



## Happy (7 December 2007)

As Smurf mentioned before, spare power can be used to pump water back to high side of hydro power station.
Wind can do the same, pump water back up directly of produce electricity to run electric pump.
Done on massive scale, despite of 20% or 25% efficiency will pump enough water back up to make huge difference.

Of course scale is important.


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 December 2007)

Happy said:


> As Smurf mentioned before, spare power can be used to pump water back to high side of hydro power station.
> Wind can do the same, pump water back up directly of produce electricity to run electric pump.
> Done on massive scale, despite of 20% or 25% efficiency will pump enough water back up to make huge difference.
> 
> Of course scale is important.



Totally agreed though I must point out that we're talking about 70% efficiency for large scale pumped storage, not 20 - 25%.


----------



## ghotib (7 December 2007)

Smurf, it seems like the discussion is all about methods of generating power for the grid. Have you seen any attempts to quantify small-scale, localised power generation (and storage of course) to reduce the load on the grid. Things like wind generation for city buildings, domestic solar+wind. Solar panels for street lights are getting quite commonplace now - does that provide some sort of indicator of what's possible?

Ghoti


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 December 2007)

Should be compulsory viewing for the 10,000 delegates in Bali ...
(all as posted elsewhere)  
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=232770&highlight=idiot#post232770

 planet of the apes

PS there will be those who point out that the Planet of the Apes is the result of nuclear war.
and then why would I post this under global warming  -  and still advocate nuclear power for Australia - 
lol - fair challenge ...


..just that  
a) if the world doesn't go nuclear power, and make some really dramatic changes, then, as I heard some Prof say a while back, the  effects of global warming will dwarf the likes of Chernyobel. 
b) as for Aus holding back for reasons of "nuclear security" - the rest of the world has nuclear - whether we do or not makes not the slightest difference to any accessibility to nuclear by "bad guys", and also...
c) we happily export Uranium, - by what sort of logic do we then claim some sort of moral high ground or consistency on this "access" question
d) I guess you have the nimby question....  but we'll always have that - even for wind turbines. (possibly not for solar granted)


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 December 2007)

PS I guess you could call it a dilemna (nuclear potentially the only saviour but at risk of blowing us up)  

-   just that I recall that Prof saying "Chernyobel was a walk in the park compared to what's ahead in the global warming stakes" o

PS I'll be fascinated to see what the Bali conference says about nuclear power options - maybe it will just leave that up to the individual countries.


----------



## Wysiwyg (10 December 2007)

A neighbour informed me about this org. and although i haven`t checked every single post i apologies if anyone has already mentioned this org. ,Green Cross, founded by none other than former soviet leader Mikhael Gorbachev.
The name apparently is inline with the Red Cross but on an ecological and environmental level.Practical help as opposed to jumping on the bandwagoning or soapbox is what they appear to be about.

Only a new group in Australia and here is the Green Cross website.


----------



## Mofra (10 December 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> But anyone who's read my posts on ASF would know that I am absolutely pro-dams for power. And the reason is simple. Hydro is the only large scale, proven technology we have that can balance the power system without using fossil fuels or nuclear.



Hydro is fantastic in theory, but what of reports that often coal actually produces less of a carbon footprint, as with hydro schemes there is the unfortunate carbon release of rotting vegetation?


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 December 2007)

Wysiwyg said:


> Only a new group in Australia and here is the Green Cross website.



Thanks for this Wys ....


> Thank you to Premier Anna Bligh and Lord Mayor Campbell Newman who have supported and provided the start-up funding for Green Cross Australia



.
Not sure about Anna Bligh's long term green credentials - 

I mean, Bob Carr (ex NSW Premier) was seriously green deep down.   Anna Bligh ...mmmm  maybe - guess I'll owe her an apology if she turns out to be genuine, but the Qld treatment of the Traveston Dam question (average depth about 2metres or less even when full) when other options half the plan area and a quarter the disruption to farmland were available is a bit of a worry


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 December 2007)

ghotib said:


> Smurf, it seems like the discussion is all about methods of generating power for the grid. Have you seen any attempts to quantify small-scale, localised power generation (and storage of course) to reduce the load on the grid. Things like wind generation for city buildings, domestic solar+wind. Solar panels for street lights are getting quite commonplace now - does that provide some sort of indicator of what's possible?
> 
> Ghoti



Lots of things are possible.

I know of one project that requires about 750 separate points of supply, each to supply a 30 Watt load that's on no more than 5 hours per day. I can't elaborate on what the project is (confidential info) but suffice to say it will be solar or possibly wind powered since that is cheaper than running cables etc for mains power.

That said, the above project will produce a LOT more greenhouse gas using solar than if it used even brown coal-fired grid power. All those solar panels inefficiently used (have to be sized for Winter conditions, excess power in Summer will simply be wasted), all those batteries to maintain etc. The grid is a lot less polluting, but more expensive in this case.

Worth noting that even Hydro Tas has solar panels set up for the monitoring euipment on various canals, dams etc. Kind of funny to be finding solar panels in a hydro scheme, but they have rather a lot of them. It's just not economic running a power line from the power station back to the canal / dam just to run a few Watts worth of monitoring and communications equipment. There are some larger scale ones too, for example the outlet at Lake Augusta has a lot of solar panels literally on top of the dam (well, on top of the building on top of the dam).

A lot of things can be done, but fundamentally the aim is to reduce the use of resources. That's the only reason we're having this debate - the grid hasn't stopped working but it impacts the environment.

And this is the bit many don't like. Renewables are, in general, very high capital cost and very low running cost. Hydro and solar are both pretty extreme in that regard. Wind has significantly higher ongoing costs but it's still pretty capital intensive. 

So the way to (1) drive down costs and (2) minimise resource use is to use ALL the power available from any renewable source once it's built. If you only use half the available power then your costs and resource use per unit of power actually used double. And that puts and end to both the economics and environmental advantages of going renewable in the first place.

There is also integration to consider. In short, 1 + 1 = a lot more than 2 when you integrate renewable power sources (applies to coal too but on a lesser scale). 

Another point is about the energy intensity of loads. Sure, you could run a house with solar. But you're not going to run an aluminium smelter that way. Given that business is about three quarters (and rising) of total demand, simply shifting residential use to solar etc doesn't get us off the coal track in the long term. 

So overall, we're absolutely better off connecting all generation to the grid IMO. Cheaper and more efficient use of resources. 

And of course if we're going to have the grid then it's an awful lot easier to just build a 200 MW solar power station than to have 200,000 x 1kW systems on roofs. A LOT easier and a LOT cheaper.

Hence my view that we'll be sticking with the grid in the long term. Some niche applications for off-grid systems certainly, but the grid will still be there.

IMO the overall argument for disconnecting from the grid is like saying we should replace cars with helicopters and thus not need roads anymore. Looks good until you consider just how inefficient a helicopter actually is. Same with remote power supplies. Both have their uses, but it's more efficient to use the grid / roads when possible.


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 December 2007)

Mofra said:


> Hydro is fantastic in theory, but what of reports that often coal actually produces less of a carbon footprint, as with hydro schemes there is the unfortunate carbon release of rotting vegetation?



I'll dig out the info if I can find it. 

But in short it depends on the timeframe and whether or not it's a man-made lake or a natural lake enlarged. Also the location - tropical etc.

Depending on what the vegetation is, it could be removed first and used as timber etc thus solving the problem.

Also have to consider that in a storage system such as the one I have described, hydro is only a minority of the actual generation. It's just that it provides 100% of the storage thus makes the rest work. So even if hydro was equal to coal in terms of emissions, it would still be worth building for this application.


----------



## ghotib (11 December 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> Lots of things are possible.
> 
> <SNIP>
> 
> ...



It's quantifying the part about a LOT easier and a LOT cheaper to build one big station than a lot of small ones on roofs (or wherever) that interests me. When I said "reduce the load on the grid", I didn't mean go off the grid (though personally I'd love to do that just for the challenge of it). I'm thinking of small scale generation that sometimes feeds the grid.

200,000 roofs is not such a big proportion of a big city, and the properties are all already connected to the grid. Does it make sense to apply some of the infrastructure funds to subsidising power generation on some of those roofs so they can feed the grid? Does storage - battery or whatever - have to be at the same scale as generation, or is it practical to have generation by each building but storage for neighbourhoods? If the grid is smart enough, is there a point where there enough small scale generators to actually reduce the need for storage? 

Seems to me that a huge advantage of small scale generation like this would be that it could start quickly and build up steadily - no 5, 10, or 15 year wait to start replacing coal, and also a gradual reduction in the need for coal with more choices about when and how to phase it out (if that's what happens). But again, that needs to be quantified. 

I get the impression that you're seeing renewables as either replacing the grid. or requiring that the grid be replaced. I don't see that. We do need to replace fossil fuels as the source of energy to feed the grid. I don't see why that means replacing the grid itself. That's like saying that replacing a mainframes with distributed network requires you to replace the Internet. 

Cheers, 

Ghoti


----------



## Aussiejeff (11 December 2007)

ghotib said:


> *...Does it make sense to apply some of the infrastructure funds to subsidising power generation on some of those roofs so they can feed the grid?...*
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> ...




Hi Ghoti. IMHO, the answer should be a resounding YES! 

As far as I am aware, a number of countries are already PAYING people for the excess electricity that they can feed into "the grid". In fact I'm sure I've seen a few TV programs where home or business owners in some of these more enlightened countries actually are making enough income from "re-selling" their extra generated power back to the grid to completely pay for their annual power bill or even make a profit!

I think it is patently ridiculous that Ozzies are not given the same sort of REAL incentive to get started into providing this alternative source to a system that sometimes struggles to provide consistent base load power. Sure, the Fed Government gives you a measly few thousand bucks subsidy if you want to purchase some photo-voltaic cells for your home or business (no where near enough at current solar cell prices to be a real incentive). Unfortunately, having shelled out bigtime from your own pockets, the electricity authorities will gleefully take ANY extra power you might generate for NOTHING. So, there is no incentive in Australia to install a big enough system to actually generate much more power than you might personally need. 

I totally agree with you that by providing better funding in this area (by way of increased subsidies for the panels and a FAIR REBATE for any extra power generated back into the grid) this form of power generation could become wide spread enough to significantly reduce the amount of coal, gas etc currently needed to power the big power stations. Given that the power authorities are always complaining about how electricity demand is at a maximum on those bright, sunny, stinking hot mid-summer days, I think it is a no-brainer that financially encouraging SIGNIFICANTLY more home/business owners to GENERATE THEIR OWN POWER and even FEED THE EXCESS INTO THE GRID TO REDUCE BASE LOAD DEMAND during peak periods would actually be a very positive thing to do!

Imagine the kudos we would get from other countries if we had such policies! 

I'm sure the Fed government could find a few $AUBillion for this over the next 5 years if they really tried. How much are they going to spend on iffy clean coal technology? 




Cheers,

AJ


----------



## numbercruncher (13 December 2007)

I think this Quote from the UNs climate chief in bali sums it up .....



> The most stark warning came from the UN's climate chief, Yvo de Boer, who told the delegates: "We must make the leap forward or be condemned to the Planet Of The Apes."
> 
> He quoted Abraham Lincoln, who was president of the US during the Civil War: "You cannot escape the responsibility of tomorrow by evading it today."




Have this feeling that green tech etc companys are going to be the next mega bubble


----------



## --B-- (13 December 2007)

the climate chief hyping up climate change??

hardly surprising....


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 December 2007)

--B-- said:


> the climate chief hyping up climate change??
> 
> hardly surprising....



 -B-    yep 
 he's obviously some crackpot 
 we should follow you instead 

remind me - are you for or against some sort of intervention on behalf of critters (and/or for man).
Is it a question of degree or degrees?
like 1 degree warming = serious action
2 degrees warming = drastic action etc


----------



## --B-- (13 December 2007)

now you're talking some sense 2020!


----------



## --B-- (13 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> remind me - are you for or against some sort of intervention on behalf of critters (and/or for man).
> Is it a question of degree or degrees?
> like 1 degree warming = serious action
> 2 degrees warming = drastic action etc




im for scientific proof that human caused climate change or global warming is a reality.


----------



## Aussiejeff (13 December 2007)

--B-- said:


> im for scientific proof that human caused climate change or global warming is a reality.




Here's some stats from the Australian Bureau Of Meteorology for you to mull over...

Visit their site for some interesting trend data. Especially the time series stuff... http://www.bom.gov.au/silo/products/cli_chg/index.shtml

I think the only conclusion you can really come to is that there CURRENTLY IS a trend for climate warming that appears to have kicked up more significantly from the 1950's. Of that there is no argument (just look at all the Bureau's data!). The main point of contention seems to be whether the primary cause is the earth's underlying climate cycles - that have been causing huge climate shifts between ice ages and non-ice ages (now) over the past millions of years  - or whether it all is happening beacuse of man made pollution.

Palaeontologist Dr Chris Scotese's World Temp Chart shows that the planet has only just begun to warm up again from a colder period. There is almost a +10 degree range we are probably shifting into! That in itself is a bit of a concern given the current rate of increase, as it probably means the temperature will continue to inexorably rise - almost regardless of what humanity tries to do to stop or limit it.    


Cheers,

AJ


----------



## --B-- (13 December 2007)

Aussiejeff said:


> The main point of contention seems to be whether the primary cause is the earth's underlying climate cycles - that have been causing huge climate shifts between ice ages and non-ice ages (now) over the past millions of years  - or whether it all is happening beacuse of man made pollution.




this is precisely the main point of contention and is central to the GW debate.

if humans are indeed not the cause of the apparent warming cycle we are experiencing then it stands to reason that the measures taken by man to "fix" the climate are pointless and unnecessary.


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Attenborough
> here's a quick summary




well this bloke's convinced anyway. 

-B- next question is "why are you saying 'don't take the cautious route', why are you saying " just plunge on ahead"?

or are you saying that ? 
 or what are you saying 
today that is


----------



## billhill (13 December 2007)

Just a thought for those few who don't see the need to act on global warming. How do you think humanity should act in this situation.

An Asteroid is heading towards earth. Most in the scientific community think there is an 50% chance it will hit the earth although the consensus is not 100%. Scientists are also telling us we have 5 years to act. Scientist are in broad agreement that if it did hit earth it could wipe out 50% of species.

How should we act. Ignore the problem or enact precautions to prevent any chance of it hitting even though it may not on its own accord.

Is there that much difference between this situation and what we face in global warming.


----------



## Rafa (13 December 2007)

--B-- said:


> this is precisely the main point of contention and is central to the GW debate.
> 
> if humans are indeed not the cause of the apparent warming cycle we are experiencing then it stands to reason that the measures taken by man to "fix" the climate are pointless and unnecessary.




what about doing something about pollution in general, not because of Gloabal warming...

I, myself am in the sceptics category, having seen the whole 'worlds gonna end cause of Y2K bug' unfold in the IT sector... (its all very very good for business)

BUT

surely if we can produce power using wind, solar, geothermal (zero emission, not just zero CO2) instead of burning coal, then why not? surely if we can use pedal power, or public transport is convineint enought to use to get to work... then why not?

to me, this is a technology question... we have progressed in every other area of society in leaps and bounds (10 to 100 fold, even more)... except when it comes to things that make energy... (be it the car engine, or power station) where we have improved 1 or 2 fold.... one has to ask oneself... why is that? Is it really that impossible?


----------



## --B-- (13 December 2007)

i dont disagree with anything you have just said Rafa.

i have absolutely no problem with any initiatives undertaken to reduce pollution and advance our energy technology


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 December 2007)

--B-- said:


> then it stands to reason that the measures taken by man to "fix" the climate are pointless and unnecessary.





--B-- said:


> i have absolutely no problem with any initiatives undertaken to reduce pollution and advance our energy technology




tell you what -B-
your arguments are extremely hard to follow


----------



## --B-- (13 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> tell you what -B-
> your arguments are extremely hard to follow




youre obviously not reading my posts slowly enough 2020.

the first quote, which youve snipped, clearly referred to measures taken to 'fix' the climate because of man made global warming.

the second refers to the reduction of pollution and advanced in technology.

co2 is not pollution 2020. its plant food.


----------



## billhill (13 December 2007)

--B-- said:
			
		

> co2 is not pollution 2020. its plant food.




Anything is pollution if released in excessive and dammaging amounts.


----------



## --B-- (13 December 2007)

billhill said:


> Anything is pollution if released in excessive and dammaging amounts.




both of which are debatable in the case of co2.


----------



## Rafa (13 December 2007)

--B-- said:


> co2 is not pollution 2020. its plant food.




CO2 is just one component of pollution... if all we want to do is stop CO2 then the easy answer is nuclear  (ironically, kyoto has always been called the nuclear protocol)

But we don't want nuclear, cause it results in other pollution, namely radiation.

The focus has to be on pollution in general, co2, methane (a bigger GW gas that CO2), heck even microscopic particles emitted from power plants, smelters, car / truck exaust pipes that are blamed for all the respiratory problems we have... let alone all the cancers!

CO2 is just one small part of the whole pollution debate... focusing just on that may make global temperatures fall, but we'll all be dead from radiation or some form of cancer anyway


----------



## white_goodman (13 December 2007)

I had a massive lecture recently  at uni which addressed this question and it can be seen that global warming is not present and if any spikes in temperature occur it is not induced by man made actions...

co-incidental that when we first developed the technology to measure the o zone layer we found a hole over antarctica.. whos to say there wasnt one there for 1000 years

Mt Erebus in antarctica attributes 1/3rd of all carbon emmissions WORLD over

the major issue is really global cooling and its effects on agriculture, as evidence proves such a trend.. 

i could go over my lecture notes but ill leave you with a nice lecture to mull over...


----------



## --B-- (13 December 2007)

white_goodman said:


> Mt Erebus in antarctica attributes 1/3rd of all carbon emmissions WORLD over




indeed.

its extraordinary the amount of people who blindly believe in AGW (and strike down those who question the science) who are completely unaware that the human component of carbon emissions is only between 3-6% of total global carbon emissions.


----------



## billhill (13 December 2007)

--B-- said:
			
		

> both of which are debatable in the case of co2.




Hardly any more.
I'm happy to put my trust in the intergovernmental panel on climate change which summarises the scientific literature. So unless your an expert in climate science and possess greater intellectual understanding then 100s of scientist i think you really have little case to argue.


----------



## --B-- (13 December 2007)

billhill said:


> Hardly any more.
> 
> 
> > I'm happy to put my trust in the intergovernmental panel on climate change which summarises the scientific literature. So unless your an expert in climate science and possess greater intellectual understanding then 100s of scientist i think you really have little case to argue.
> ...


----------



## chops_a_must (13 December 2007)

--B-- said:


> both of which are debatable in the case of co2.




By this same logic, ozone is not a pollution.

While it may be true that human emissions are only 3-6% of total emissions, it's an obfuscation of data. It's not a linear expression, because there are multipliers, which make it in actual fact an exponential function. You can't just say that human emissions are only 3-6% of emissions so don't worry about it, when for instance, the ability to cope with these emissions has been diminished in nature, by human activity. So, in previous times, with a steady emission flow from nature, today's human emissions may in actual fact be what would previously be 9-12% of emissions or whatever. But because the greater majority of emissions, from nature, will increase at a much greater rate than human emissions, in percentage terms, it hides the extent of the problem in total terms. You can't use human emission percentages as an argument when they are likely to go down as a relation if this keeps up.


----------



## billhill (13 December 2007)

Sure they're not sure. Thats entirely correct. But they know alot more then you or me so when a large number of them are saying "Hey we think we might have a big problem here" you don't ignore them because they said might. 

Its all about risk management. I think you would find most people would consider 90% a pretty sure bet. I know most people on this site would be extatic if they could be profitable in even 80% of trades. Risking our futures on 10% seems pretty irrisponsible to me. Governements wouldn't ignore a 90% risk of a terrorist attack or a category 5 cyclone. They prevent or prepare for the event.


----------



## white_goodman (13 December 2007)

anyone else find it ironic that measures to prevent climate change and global warming to promote intergenerational equity require practices that limit population growth... ie providing a better future for people that wont exist


----------



## white_goodman (13 December 2007)

--B-- said:


> indeed.
> 
> its extraordinary the amount of people who blindly believe in AGW (and strike down those who question the science) who are completely unaware that the human component of carbon emissions is only between 3-6% of total global carbon emissions.




we must por concrete into mt erebus its the only solution lol


----------



## --B-- (13 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> While it may be true that human emissions are only 3-6% of total emissions, it's an obfuscation of data. It's not a linear expression, because there are multipliers, which make it in actual fact an exponential function. You can't just say that human emissions are only 3-6% of emissions so don't worry about it, when for instance, the ability to cope with these emissions has been diminished in nature, by human activity.




what on earth did you just say? i honestly dont know what youre trying to say here.



> So, in previous times, with a steady emission flow from nature, today's human emissions may in actual fact be what would previously be 9-12% of emissions or whatever. But because the greater majority of emissions, from nature, will increase at a much greater rate than human emissions, in percentage terms, it hides the extent of the problem in total terms. You can't use human emission percentages as an argument when they are likely to go down if this keeps up.




when co2 is apparently going to kill us all you can talk about percentages. if the natural variation on co2 is more than the amount we consider adequate to 'save' us it makes sense to consider it.


----------



## --B-- (13 December 2007)

billhill said:


> Sure they're not sure. Thats entirely correct. But they know alot more then you or me so when a large number of them are saying "Hey we think we might have a big problem here" you don't ignore them because they said might.




a large number of climate scientists also argue there is absolutely no basis for the hype and hysteria.


----------



## chops_a_must (13 December 2007)

--B-- said:


> what on earth did you just say? i honestly dont know what youre trying to say here.
> 
> 
> 
> when co2 is apparently going to kill us all you can talk about percentages. if the natural variation on co2 is more than the amount we consider adequate to 'save' us it makes sense to consider it.




Hey, I was answering YOUR point about PERCENTAGES.


----------



## white_goodman (13 December 2007)

anyone realise the a financial incentive for many businesses to go green...ie the consumer pays more... ie profit.. youve also gotta look at the reliability of studies...

a study into the dangers of being vegetarian funded by the meat council might have a litle bias


----------



## spooly74 (13 December 2007)

white_goodman said:


> co-incidental that when we first developed the technology to measure the o zone layer we found a hole over antarctica.. whos to say there wasnt one there for 1000 years




Because the chemical signature of light revealed elevated levels of chlorine dioxide above Antartica unlike anywhere else on Earth.

In the late 80s, this was the first piece of evidence which lay the blame for the hole in the ozone on humankind. Nearly all atmospheric chlorine comes from CFCs.


----------



## nioka (13 December 2007)

Man made polution may not be the main cause of global warming but is it the last straw that breaks the camel's back. At least it is one we can do something about so why not do what we can. Let us not fiddle while Rome burns.


----------



## billhill (13 December 2007)

--B-- said:
			
		

> a large number of climate scientists also argue there is absolutely no basis for the hype and hysteria.




Ok. Then Why arn't they the scientists at the UNIPCC telling the world that human caused global warming is a load of rubbish we needn't do anything about. The UNIGPC report is compiled using the scientific literature. If human influences were not the likely cause of global warming surely this would be reflected in the literature and consequently the UNIPCC's report.


----------



## --B-- (13 December 2007)

billhill said:


> Ok. Then Why arn't they the scientists at the UNIPCC telling the world that human caused global warming is a load of rubbish we needn't do anything about. The UNIGPC report is compiled using the scientific literature. If human influences were not the likely cause of global warming surely this would be reflected in the literature and consequently the UNIPCC's report.




Bill, here is an interesting letter written by a member of the "esteemed" IPCC Reviewers Panel.



> *SUPPORT FOR CALL FOR REVIEW OF UN IPCC*
> 
> *Dr Vincent Gray, a member of the UN IPCC Expert Reviewers Panel since its inception, has written to Professor David Henderson, to support the latter’s call for a review of the IPCC and its procedures.*
> 
> ...


----------



## --B-- (13 December 2007)

would anyone like to comment on the above?


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 December 2007)

Ask him to put 
a) his life on the line, and
b) the lives of all his kids and their offspring on the line ...

and see if he's so sure that he's right then 

I mean, they die if he's wrong with this deal.

In any case, you just said you're happy to make these emission changes (yes??), so I don't think we have an argument in the final analysis.

PS He's one voice.
here's another..
IPCC just won the Nobel Peace Prize.


----------



## --B-- (13 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Ask him to put
> a) his life on the line, and
> b) the lives of all his kids and their offspring on the line ...
> 
> ...




oh please. is that all you guys have got? propagate fear when theres nothing else left?

it seems to be the line many revert to when backed into a corner.


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 December 2007)

-B-
And is your old fogey kiwi the best you've got 
http://www.nrsp.com/people-vincent-gray.html

there are countless youtubes out there (and recent articles) where never before experienced melting of snow etc is being felt right now.

The fact that you could care less about such trends is ..a bit sad
fortunately (if you were saying not to act - 
 which lol
 you insist you are not saying)

then IF you were saying not to act- 
then it looks like you would be in the minority or about 10 or 15% whatever

keep stirring - keep reading - you'll catch up


----------



## --B-- (13 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> -B-
> And is your old fogey kiwi the best yuo've got




oh ive got more if you like 2020.

i note with amusement you have failed to address anything in the letter.

Clearly, being a member of the review panel, Dr Gray has adequate knowledge to comment.



> there are countless youtubes out there (and recent articles) where never before experienced melting of snow etc is being felt right now.




lol, youtubes are credible evidence now?



> The fact that you could care less about such trends is ..a bit sad
> fortunately (if you were saying not to act -
> which lol
> you insiste you are not)
> ...




i clarified that earlier 2020. i have no problem with measures to reduce pollution. this isnt because i belive in catastrophic climate change and its not because i believe co2 is evil and deadly.



> keep stirring - keep reading - you'll catch up




keep viewing your youtube videos and ill continue reading the opinions and findings of credible scientists.


----------



## billhill (13 December 2007)

I don't think one scientists view of the IPCC justifies its conclusions being completely discounted. Surely some of the points Dr Gray raises may in fact be true. However in saying that no organisation is completely void of inefficiencies in interpreting data and Dr Grays opinion last i checked was not gospel. Point is If there really wasn't a high risk of a problem caused by our CO2 emmissions then the UN wouldn't be making the current claims and projections that it is. Its really not in their business to create eloborate hoaxes about the climate. And anyone who thinks there is some conspiracy among scientists in support of this 'Hoax' really are crazy.

If this is some propaganda war then why is the side with all the money and political influence (business, particually coal and oil) not getting its so called "logical" point that GW is a myth into the mainstream media. Surely if their was no problem it would be easy to convince the public so.


----------



## chops_a_must (13 December 2007)

--B-- said:


> would anyone like to comment on the above?




How many scientists does that panel have? 1800 or something?

There were dissenting voices the last time anything like this was occurring. And in all cases if I remember rightly, they were on the pay roll of, or had been soon before, of DuPont.


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 December 2007)

-B- said:
			
		

> i have no problem with measures to reduce pollution.



-B-
In summary...
Since you support measures to reduce pollution, and you empathise with lill critters that are being wiped out daily - then on behalf of those critters, and (needless to say) the people of the third world and the climatic refugees of the future - Tuvalu etc - 

I thank you for your support.
ava good one.


----------



## numbercruncher (13 December 2007)

Its not even woth debating with the Deniers anymore as their numbers are so small and insignificant, you just need to worry about Governments like US and China that are unwilling to act for fear of economic contraction. Most Governments accept it, just cant work out how to deal with it, lets hope they dont hum and ho for too long.


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 December 2007)

numbercruncher said:
			
		

> worry about Governments like US and China that are unwilling to act for fear of economic contraction




spot on !!! - that's the risk ! well said.  ostricize the bastards who ignore it. - especially USA. - I notice Rudd put a dig in there in his Bali speech. 



numbercruncher said:


> Im doing my bit as well, I get the mrs to mow the lawns with a pair of scissors



nc,  your post from way back .. lol

You also mentioned the hydrogen fuel cell buses 
I went for a ride on one in Perth a while back ..  they call it the "ecobus / zero emissions"

www.dpi.wa.gov.au/ecobus

Specs read as follows:-
seats 59 people ( full size bus)
Ballard fule cell unit (> 250kW nett power)
range 200 - 300 km
lenth -  12m ,  
weight - 18T
max weight of hydrogen 44kg (1890 litres) 
hydrogen purity  99.999%

question ...  When I tried to weigh out some hydrogen - the more I put on the scales, the lighter it got ??


----------



## chops_a_must (13 December 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Its not even woth debating with the Deniers anymore as their numbers are so small and insignificant, you just need to worry about Governments like US and China that are unwilling to act for fear of economic contraction. Most Governments accept it, just cant work out how to deal with it, lets hope they dont hum and ho for too long.




Hmmm... Here is something that backs up what I've said previously. China actually doing more about climate change than most western countries, despite what the neigh sayers have been saying:



> China beefs up clean energy drive
> 
> Print
> 
> ...




http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2007/s2117219.htm


----------



## white_goodman (13 December 2007)

spooly74 said:


> Because the chemical signature of light revealed elevated levels of chlorine dioxide above Antartica unlike anywhere else on Earth.
> 
> In the late 80s, this was the first piece of evidence which lay the blame for the hole in the ozone on humankind. Nearly all atmospheric chlorine comes from CFCs.




so you are saying the populations of australia, new Zealand, South Africa and Argentina/Brazil cause that much pollution...then why dont they have the same problem in the northern hemisphere.... and dont say the wind travels the pollution down cos wind pattersn flow in a circular fashion to and from the equator with very little cross flow.

Those that beleive need to open your eyes, theirs an obvious economic advantage in going 'green' and those that are following this drivel blindly will be made fools of...it is in the interest of future generations to utilise all minerals and natural resources, not restricting them... by creating a better standard of living now it will ensure a better standard of living for the future.


----------



## Wysiwyg (13 December 2007)

> China's booming economy may be fuelled by coal but, the world's second biggest polluter




What can we as individuals do in our everyday lives to reduce waste.*Recycling most stuff *is a good start.Frugal grocery shopping is another.Let the pollies handle the bigger picture i think.


----------



## chops_a_must (13 December 2007)

white_goodman said:


> *Those that beleive need to open your eyes, theirs an obvious economic advantage in going 'green' and those that are following this drivel blindly will be made fools of.*..it is in the interest of future generations to utilise all minerals and natural resources, not restricting them... by creating a better standard of living now it will ensure a better standard of living for the future.



You are kidding aren't you? CFC's have placed an enormous burden and cost structure on the economy over the last 20 years.

And secondly, if there is an economic advantage in going green, then why aren't we?!!! That's what the free market is all about!!


----------



## spooly74 (13 December 2007)

white_goodman said:


> so you are saying the populations of australia, new Zealand, South Africa and Argentina/Brazil cause that much pollution...then why dont they have the same problem in the northern hemisphere.... and dont say the wind travels the pollution down cos wind pattersn flow in a circular fashion to and from the equator with very little cross flow.
> 
> Those that beleive need to open your eyes, theirs an obvious economic advantage in going 'green' and those that are following this drivel blindly will be made fools of...it is in the interest of future generations to utilise all minerals and natural resources, not restricting them... by creating a better standard of living now it will ensure a better standard of living for the future.




The hole in the ozone layer is not drivel  and like i said has been *proven* to be caused by CFCs.

Because of the extreme cold of the South Polar region, which is much colder than even the North Pole, an unusual kind of cloud forms in the stratosphere. 

Google polar stratospheric clouds ..... thats enough drivel from me, and btw I was only referring to your comment regarding the ozone layer.


----------



## white_goodman (13 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> You are kidding aren't you? CFC's have placed an enormous burden and cost structure on the economy over the last 20 years.
> 
> And secondly, if there is an economic advantage in going green, then why aren't we?!!! That's what the free market is all about!!






u misunderstand.. economic advantage for a select few through profit, not the consumer..and the propoganda is fueling such profits...

and also to the CFC's never said they werent a problem, tho there is evidence that many cfc's are heavy gases that are sunk into the soil, im jsut saying why is their such a massive ozone issue in the southern hemisphere when the northern hemisphere is by far the biggest polluters... unless those damn fijians have been consuming vast quantities of fossil fuels


----------



## chops_a_must (13 December 2007)

white_goodman said:


> u misunderstand.. economic advantage for a select few through profit, not the consumer..



Yeah... and how is that any different from now?


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 December 2007)

History is being made as we speak folks ...

ray for the good guys -  rayyyyy
boo for the bad guys - boooooo


http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/13/2118368.htm


> EU, US deadlocked at climate change talks
> By environment reporter Sarah Clarke
> 
> Posted 2 hours 19 minutes ago
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 December 2007)

hey -B- here's another scientist to deny global warming

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



> Siegfried Frederick Singer (born September 27, 1924 in Vienna) is an American electrical engineer and physicist. He is best known as President and founder (in 1990) of the Science & Environmental Policy Project, which disputes the prevailing scientific views of climate change, ozone depletion, and secondhand smoke[1] and is science advisor to the conservative journal NewsMax.




trouble is he is (or has been) an expert in nearly everything over the years lol..

including the health risks of smoking 



> Singer is also skeptical about the connection between CFCs and ozone depletion,
> 
> between UV-B radiation and melanoma[2][3][4][5][6]
> 
> ...




  Fred Singer "The Denial Machine" Clip


> This some clips of global warming denier Dr. S Fred Singer in the CBC Fifth Estate's Denial Industry documentary



He says that the temperature 1000 years ago was hotter - he is wrong! plain wrong.  Furthermore, the graph of temperature vs time is heading uphill "like an unprecedentally / unprecedently ? homesick angel" as they say.

PS - never play poker with this bloke - he could bluff you out of a royal routine flush with a pair of deuces


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 December 2007)

here's another youtube worth watching ..

  Global Warming: junk science vs. real science 



> This is a short video I made that compares the credentials of climate change "skeptic" and practicing, well published scientist that says climate change is happening and humans are to blame. It's very amatuer production, but I hope it makes the point clear that many of the people who say climate change is not happening are far from authorities in the area of climate change science


----------



## white_goodman (13 December 2007)

to be honest im more worried about global cooling atm well atleast for my lifetime


----------



## spooly74 (13 December 2007)

white_goodman said:


> why is their such a massive ozone issue in the southern hemisphere when the northern hemisphere is by far the biggest polluters... unless those damn fijians have been consuming vast quantities of fossil fuels




Its not that all the CFCs just gathered around the Antartic or that they were blown down there.....they are everywhere!!

But



> In most parts of the stratosphere, chlorine oxide (ClO) reacts with nitrogen dioxide (NO2), a gas that is found in the upper atmosphere. NO2 comes from natural sources but is also made by human activity. It is a radical, and often an environmental pollutant.
> The product of the reaction between ClO and NO2 is ClONO2.
> 
> This prevents ClO from reacting with more ozone, slowing down ozone depletion. But it turns out that the polar stratospheric clouds high above Antarctica are a catalyst for a chemical reaction between ClONO2 and HCl. (HCl also exists as a gas in the high atmosphere.)
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 December 2007)

white_goodman said:


> to be honest im more worried about global cooling atm well atleast for my lifetime




How ironic you should mention that ..

there's every chance that Europe ( who incidentally are pushing the barrow on this) will indeed experience cooling

because the gulf stream (alias the "conveyor") could well cease to flow - and it's warming function would be lost , so that Europe would become cold while the rest of the world became hot 

  Why an Ice age may come to Britain within 20 yrs - Pt 1 of 4


----------



## wayneL (13 December 2007)

Let's suppose AGW is a given as most believe. WTF are we, as individuals going to do about it?

The vast majority are still increasing their energy consumption markedly and relying on some magic clean technology to save the earth. What a load of bollox.

Certainly there should be massive research and investment in this, but what about *us*, we the people? 

How about massively reducing our energy usage as individuals? Wouldn't do much for our status anxiety, but it might ensure the survival of our children.

Not so long ago, we all survived quite adequately without the dishwasher, tumble dryer, ducted air conditioning and heating, 3m wide TVs, 4x4s to drive the kids the 150m to school, the ludicrous amount of packaging for even the most insignificant item, and the myriad of other power hungry BS appliances etc. Surely we can get by without all that tosh to save the freakin planet?

It's up to us folks! Stop looking to BS GW film makers driving around in limousines and living in mansions and pork barrelling politicians to save us... they won't.

Looking around me in the world, this makes me pessimistic. We have to change.


----------



## Wysiwyg (13 December 2007)

It`s a funny one you know, the planet would live a healthier (prolly longer) life span if human mind didn`t evolve,  but since human is part of nature/life then i can only know that everything is in order . For better or worse.


ps ... overcome selfish desire


----------



## billhill (13 December 2007)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Looking around me in the world, this makes me pessimistic. We have to change.




Its easy to say that we have to change and many people are making a concious effort to do so. Alot of people don't give a s**t about their footprint as well. Therefore its alot easier to hand the task to the government and regulators because they actually have the power to make a significant difference. 

I think you'll find that people are changing. The prominance of the GW issue in the election shows this. The population demanded better action on GW and they will now get it. Sure most people have changed only their ideals and opinions so far but you need that shift before behaviour will change.


----------



## wayneL (13 December 2007)

billhill said:


> Its easy to say that we have to change and many people are making a concious effort to do so. Alot of people don't give a s**t about their footprint as well. Therefore its alot easier to hand the task to the government and regulators because they actually have the power to make a significant difference.
> 
> I think you'll find that people are changing. The prominance of the GW issue in the election shows this. The population demanded better action on GW and they will now get it. Sure most people have changed only their ideals and opinions so far but you need that shift before behaviour will change.




Not until it is marketed. Marketing is all powerful and people won't change while there is status in an energy hungry lifestyle.

Since we have radically change our ways (and it's not that radical at all) we have noticed a change in attitude towards us. The people in our income group are offended by our choice of lifestyle and/or believe we have gone broke... this is enlightening however. #### 'em, Bohemians are much more fun.

I'll only believe in change when the marketeers change.... i.e. not bloody likely.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 December 2007)

Words are easy. Most are in for one huge shock as to the implications for them personally if we actually do get serious about cutting emissions. Just as they are in for a shock with the implications if we don't.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 December 2007)

wayneL said:


> Not until it is marketed. Marketing is all powerful and people won't change while there is status in an energy hungry lifestyle.
> 
> Since we have radically change our ways (and it's not that radical at all) we have noticed a change in attitude towards us. The people in our income group are offended by our choice of lifestyle and/or believe we have gone broke... this is enlightening however. #### 'em, Bohemians are much more fun.
> 
> I'll only believe in change when the marketeers change.... i.e. not bloody likely.



It's truly amazing how often I have to "justify" having an economical car etc. Even had to explain to someone why I don't waste electricity a few days ago - they just couldn't understand even when I put it in purely financial terms that it will save money.


----------



## Wysiwyg (13 December 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> Words are easy. Most are in for one huge shock as to the implications for them personally if we actually do get serious about cutting emissions. Just as they are in for a shock with the implications if we don't.




What about electricity, water and fuel restrictions?For the majority, this is when the message will hit home.`Till then (if ever) the `majority` will continue on in Beta level regardless.


Ps possible future scenario


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 December 2007)

George Bush & Will Ferrel On Global Warming


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 December 2007)

> *Australia remains part of the so-called "umbrella" group of nations at the climate talks, including the United States, Japan, Canada and Russia*, which all oppose concrete figures in the Bali declaration, instead supporting a flexible approach for each country.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/13/2118513.htm?section=justin



> EU criticises Rudd on climate change
> Posted 2 hours 20 minutes ago
> 
> A European Union leader has accused Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd of not doing enough to fight global warming despite signing the Kyoto Protocol.
> ...


----------



## ghotib (14 December 2007)

--B-- said:


> Bill, here is an interesting letter written by a member of the "esteemed" IPCC Reviewers Panel.



ROFL!!! Looks like Dr Gray needs to spend some time on a stocks forum so he can learn about back testing computer models. Technical system traders know, you can test the predictive power of a model by seeing how well it models the past and the present. Pity Dr Gray hasn't cottoned on to that yet.

This link is to a commentary on one of Dr Gray's recent papers. The introduction says that it "...only highlight a few key points which illustrate the fundamental misconceptions on the physics of climate that underlie most of Gray's pronouncements on climate change and its causes."  http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/ 

Perhaps you'd care to comment --B--

The IPCC reports contain tougher critiques of their own methods and data than this letter does. 

Ghoti


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 December 2007)

--B-- said:


> Bill, here is an interesting letter written by a member of the "esteemed" IPCC Reviewers Panel.



Since you ask me to go into that post of yours by Vincent Gray, (and incidentally ghoti, it's a different Dr Gray to the one your quote - which just goes to show that with literally thousands of scientists out there, you are gonna get many repititions of the same surnames - (and many differeing opinions - some totally useless, and some "better" (general concensus becomes relevant yes?) 

:topic  most of em fat portly gentlemen - and more Chins than a Hong Kong phone directory ....

I quote below his conclusion, where he makes unfortunate reference to "the Great Global Warming Swindle"....  and he implies that he believes that TV article  

Below I give a lead to other posts, and indeed to the youtube of the man who made that show (Durkins) being interviewed by ABC's Tony Jones.  Knock youtubes if you wish, but remember that - in this instance at least, they give you a chance for one of the deniers to be cross-examined - 

and he fails! - simple as that - !  He is shown to be a cheat !




> By drawing attention to these obvious facts I have now found myself persona non grata with most of my local professional associations, Surely, I am questioning the integrity of these award-winning scientific leaders of the local science establishment. When you get down to it, that is what is involved.
> 
> *I somehow understood that the threshold had been passed when I viewed "The Great Global Warming Swindle". Yes, we have to face it. The whole process is a swindle,* The IPCC from the beginning was given the licence to use whatever methods would be necessary to provide "evidence" that carbon dioxide increases are harming the climate, even if this involves manipulation of dubious data and using peoples' opinions instead of science to "prove" their case.




He goes on to say there hasn't been any global warming for past 8 years ??


> The disappearance of the IPCC in disgrace is not only desirable but inevitable. The reason is, that the world will slowly realise that the "predictions" emanating from the IPCC will not happen. *The absence of any "global warming" for the past eight years is just the beginning*. Sooner or later all of us will come to realise that this organisation, and the thinking behind it, is phony. Unfortunately severe economic damage is likely to be done by its influence before that happens.





--B-- said:


> oh ive got more if you like 2020.
> i note with amusement you have failed to address anything in the letter.
> Clearly, being a member of the review panel, Dr Gray has adequate knowledge to comment.
> lol, youtubes are credible evidence now?.





In the end I like the conclusion you arrive at - albeit by a circuitous route.. 



> i clarified that earlier 2020. i have no problem with measures to reduce pollution. this isnt because i belive in catastrophic climate change and its not because i believe co2 is evil and deadly.
> 
> keep viewing your youtube videos and ill continue reading the opinions and findings of credible scientists.




https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=231965&highlight=swindle#post231965



2020hindsight said:


> Part of the reason for doubt is the misinformation put out by the likes of Durkins ( "Great Global Warming Swindle").
> 
> Worth a watch if you missed it on ABC.
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 December 2007)

And -B- . after that try watching this 
you can compare Prof David Karoly of Uni of Melb ( and IPCC - who is one of my team) - 
with Prof Bob Simpkins (who is one of your team)



2020hindsight said:


> Kiwi,
> Here's part of that ABC review of Durkin's "Great Global Warming Swindle" - showing it to be a swindle itself !!
> Great Global Warming Swindle ABC Debates Part 3/9
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 December 2007)

...
typical IPCC report summary


----------



## Scuba (14 December 2007)

*Gore urges divided climate summit to ignore US
* ABC news site-AFP

...edits...
"My own country, the United States, is principally responsible for obstructing progress here in Bali. We all know that," he said to loud applause.
...
...
"You can feel anger and frustration, and direct it at the United States of America," he said.

"Or you can make a second choice, you can decide to move forward and do all of the difficult work that needs to be done and save a large open blank space in your document and put a footnote by it that says this document is incomplete."

"Over the next two years, the United States is going to be somewhere it isn't right now. You must anticipate that."


----------



## Aussiejeff (14 December 2007)

wayneL said:


> Not until it is marketed. Marketing is all powerful and people won't change while there is status in an energy hungry lifestyle.
> 
> Since we have radically change our ways (and it's not that radical at all) we have noticed a change in attitude towards us. The people in our income group are offended by our choice of lifestyle and/or believe we have gone broke... this is enlightening however. #### 'em, Bohemians are much more fun.
> 
> I'll only believe in change when the marketeers change.... i.e. not bloody likely.




Spot on, wayneL...

I personally don't see REAL behavioural change occurring on a BROAD scale until some or all of the following "incentives" are offered/legislated for ALL consumers....

(1) SIGNIFICANT rebates OR taxes (on a sliding scale) for basically EVERY consumable item known to personkind (including cars, washing machines, light bulbs, dish washers, Big Macs etc, etc ). EVERY consumable should be rated by a PF (Pollution Factor) and the retail price to the consumer adjusted accordingly to reflect that products particular pollution "footprint". Hell of a job to introduce - but the carrot and stick approach might just work. Some items like photo-voltaics and water tanks already attract rebates in some states, but the amount of refund is still WAY to low to encourage many more consumers to switch across. 

(2) A new broad-based curriculum of MANDATORY anti-pollution and pro-environmental subjects should be introduced to ALL primary & secondary schools. That should be easy when all kids will soon have laptop access!  The message on how to be a responsible consumer needs to be hammered into the new generations from an early age...

(3) SIGNIFICANT user pays charges (again, on a sliding scale) for water, gas & electricity useage across ALL sectors (business and private). Until mining companies, power generators and commercial agriculture, as well as private individuals, start to pay the REAL cost of these currently dirt cheap commodities, pollution as we are experiencing on the current massive scale will continue barely un-abated.

Of course, none of the above measures will be cheap to implement - but getting people to change en-masse without such painful measures would be near impossible IMO.



AJ


----------



## --B-- (14 December 2007)

ghotib said:


> ROFL!!! Looks like Dr Gray needs to spend some time on a stocks forum so he can learn about back testing computer models. Technical system traders know, you can test the predictive power of a model by seeing how well it models the past and the present. Pity Dr Gray hasn't cottoned on to that yet.




so you think technical system models are comparable to those that model the climate?

i dont.


> This link is to a commentary on one of Dr Gray's recent papers. The introduction says that it "...only highlight a few key points which illustrate the fundamental misconceptions on the physics of climate that underlie most of Gray's pronouncements on climate change and its causes."  http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/gray-on-agw/
> 
> Perhaps you'd care to comment --B--





as 2020 pointed out below, this is a different Dr Gray and therefore this is hardly relevant.

when i have some more time ill read more of your article and those of Dr William Gray.



> The IPCC reports contain tougher critiques of their own methods and data than this letter does.
> 
> Ghoti




perhaps you would like to post these 'critiques'?


----------



## moneymajix (14 December 2007)

The last ten years on earth have been the hottest decade on record.


In Australia, the last 12 months has been one of the hottest years on record.




PS:

*AlGoreRithmic*

Term meaning support methods for the planet.


----------



## white_goodman (14 December 2007)

moneymajix said:


> The last ten years on earth have been the hottest decade on record.
> 
> 
> In Australia, the last 12 months has been one of the hottest years on record.
> ...




yeh you cant say global warming based upon such a small timespan, that how we go into this propoganda mess, look back further then 10 years, 50 years or even 100 years, we have to look back to trends over ages or 1000's of years... plus that little theory that Australia has experienced the hottest year on record is flawed cos if you remember june/july this year especially in Sydney it was the coldest on "record"


----------



## Rafa (14 December 2007)

As much as i agree with everything you say WayneL, i think your hope for changing from the ground up is a bit too idealist... (we have 6 billion people in the world, and the majority haven't got past the lower levels of maslow hierarchy of needs)

What BillHill said is spot on... Its up to govt's (dare i say, leaders), to lead the flock towards the new beleifs, and present a convincing arguement why it is in our best interest.

As much as i can't stand al gore, its becoming more apparent that us humans are dumb arses who only react to fear... if we can all be convinced to act in the name of self preservation, the problem can be solved in no time... (to borrow from you previous post, Al Gore is the marketing face of the GW crusade)


----------



## numbercruncher (14 December 2007)

white_goodman said:


> yeh you cant say global warming based upon such a small timespan, that how we go into this propoganda mess, look back further then 10 years, 50 years or even 100 years, we have to look back to trends over ages or 1000's of years... plus that little *theory* that Australia has experienced the hottest year on record is flawed cos if you remember june/july this year especially in Sydney it was the coldest on "record"





Its not a theory, its a fact backed by data.

People are grabbing the cliche title "Global Warming" and running with it, forget that title, its "Climate Change" - More extremities of everything, Hotter weather, colder weather, more Intense Cyclones, more floods, more draughts,the proof is in the pudding. The general theme is higher average temperatures, which is backed by scientific fact and data collected all over the planet, including things such as Glaciers and Ice shelfs retreating year on year and gathering speed.

I cant logically see how anyone can still be denying this considering the absolute mass of undenieable evidence.

We can all see just how seriously "most" Governments are now taking this issue and if we as investors dont position ourselfs accordingly, well more the fools us eh ?


----------



## --B-- (14 December 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Its not a theory, its a fact backed by data.
> 
> People are grabbing the cliche title "Global Warming" and running with it, forget that title, its "Climate Change" - More extremities of everything, Hotter weather, colder weather, more Intense Cyclones, more floods, more draughts,the proof is in the pudding.




the theory is that 'evil' co2 traps heat in the atmosphere resulting in warming.

as the global temperature has 'cooled' since 1998 the scientists pushing GW changed the catch phrase to 'climate change' to suit their agenda.



> The general theme is higher average temperatures, which is backed by scientific fact and data collected all over the planet, including things such as Glaciers and Ice shelfs retreating year on year and gathering speed.




except that average temps have not been increasing since 1998.



> We can all see just how seriously "most" Governments are now taking this issue and if we as investors dont position ourselfs accordingly, well more the fools us eh ?




governments usually act to keep voters happy. the issues they act upon cant necessarily be assumed to be valid simply because they act. 

ftr: i fully agree with your comments re: we investors.


----------



## white_goodman (14 December 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Its not a theory, its a fact backed by data.
> 
> People are grabbing the cliche title "Global Warming" and running with it, forget that title, its "Climate Change" - More extremities of everything, Hotter weather, colder weather, more Intense Cyclones, more floods, more draughts,the proof is in the pudding. The general theme is higher average temperatures, which is backed by scientific fact and data collected all over the planet, including things such as Glaciers and Ice shelfs retreating year on year and gathering speed.
> 
> ...




governments are only on the bandwagon cos it would be political suicide not do so...plus your evidence is skewed as the best temperature recording system in the world is in the US and many of those stations have been moved to different location, are situated near hot ashphalt, are to low to the ground or funnily enough situated next to air conditioners. climate change yes, human induced NO...hell why do you think its called Greenland...its covered in ice, but when sttled by the vikings it was during a climate change or unusual warm period hence the green surroundings... and we are in a period of time where temperature fluctuations are minmal roughly +- 2.5 celsius a century where as around 11000 yars ago it would change up to 15 celcius


----------



## moneymajix (14 December 2007)

*Barrier Reef could be gone within 30 years: study*

A new study predicts the world's coral reef systems, including Queensland's Great Barrier Reef, could collapse within 30 years if the effects of global warming are not reversed.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/14/2118585.htm


----------



## spooly74 (14 December 2007)

white_goodman said:


> ...plus your evidence is skewed as the best temperature recording system in the world is in the US and many of those stations have been moved to different location, are situated near hot ashphalt, are to low to the ground or funnily enough situated next to air conditioners.




have you got a link to verify this info ... cheers


----------



## numbercruncher (14 December 2007)

spooly74 said:


> have you got a link to verify this info ... cheers





lol my thoughts exactly, and do these Brillant American "scientists" place these devices all over the world? and do they always hunt out places on asphalt beside airconditioners to gather this data for the "agenda" ?


----------



## numbercruncher (14 December 2007)

Anyway once Dubbya gets ousted from his Ivory tower im almost sure our American cousins will come fight the good fight, and as for China it will be comply or face "climate" tariffs on your "stuff".

Actually i think the world is nearly big enough,powerful enough and united enough on this issue to now force both these guys if needed, tax them into submission


----------



## white_goodman (14 December 2007)

spooly74 said:


> have you got a link to verify this info ... cheers




have a look at the youtube i posted 2 or so pages back it was in 4 parts...

also how mnay world animal species do you think have become extinct since the 1970's due to global warming???


----------



## spooly74 (14 December 2007)

white_goodman said:


> have a look at the youtube i posted 2 or so pages back it was in 4 parts...



Will do !


white_goodman said:


> also how mnay world animal species do you think have become extinct since the 1970's due to global warming???



Couldnt give a rats! 
99% of all species that lived on this planet have become extinct. I`m only worried about mankind in the GW debate.


----------



## white_goodman (14 December 2007)

spooly74 said:


> Will do !
> 
> Couldnt give a rats!
> 99% of all species that lived on this planet have become extinct. I`m only worried about mankind in the GW debate.




well it would surprise you that 1000's were predicted to be extinct but since 1970 only 7 species have become extinct.....take that global warming alarmists


----------



## chops_a_must (14 December 2007)

white_goodman said:


> well it would surprise you that 1000's were predicted to be extinct but since 1970 only 7 species have become extinct.....take that global warming alarmists




You do realise there is a big time lag for declaring animals extinct don't you?


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 December 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Anyway once Dubbya gets ousted from his Ivory tower im almost sure our American cousins will come fight the good fight, and as for China it will be comply or face "climate" tariffs on your "stuff".
> 
> Actually i think the world is nearly big enough,powerful enough and united enough on this issue to now force both these guys if needed, tax them into submission



nc, agreed  

I love the way Australia is doing it now, 
and USA will no doubt do it when they are finally dragged screaming to the signing table....

"and we are determined to take a position of LEADERSHIP on this matter"  

wow ,lol,  I'd call it following rather than leading , but let em feed their egos and their electoral bases I guess 

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


> the US, and Kazakhstan are the only signatory nations, not to have ratified the act.






> The Kyoto Protocol is an agreement made under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Countries that ratify this protocol commit to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases, or engage in emissions trading if they maintain or increase emissions of these gases.
> 
> The Kyoto Protocol now covers more than 170 countries globally and more than 60% of countries in terms of global greenhouse gas emissions. As of December 2007, *the US, and Kazakhstan are the only signatory nations, not to have ratified the act.* This treaty expires in 2012, and international talks began in May 2007 on a future treaty to succeed the current one.[4]
> 
> At its heart, the Kyoto Protocol establishes the following principles: ... etc


----------



## white_goodman (14 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> You do realise there is a big time lag for declaring animals extinct don't you?




well i know theres a big difference between thousands and seven...but valid point


----------



## numbercruncher (14 December 2007)

Look even if this small extremist fringe group of people denying climate change turned out to be correct, we need to clean up our planet and stop treating it like a toilet ..... I like that Indian proverb ...


"Only when the last tree is cut; only when the last river is polluted; only when the last fish is caught; only then will they realize that you cannot eat money." 


Dont you love how the deniers are now the Extremists and the acceptors are now considered realists represented by main stream society ?


----------



## numbercruncher (14 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> nc, agreed
> 
> I love the way Australia is doing it now,
> and USA will no doubt do it when they are finally dragged screaming to the signing table....
> ...




Heya 2020,

Yes lol let them feed the ego, guess theyve got some claim to it especially in comparison to the "alternative".

Yes hopefully they dream up a import tax large enough to place on goods manufactored in "non Kyoto" places to force them !


Heres the Mrs doing her bit  to fight the good fight, only 6200m2 to go, wonder if shell make it in for dinner ?


----------



## noirua (14 December 2007)

I remember it well!  The days when Mum had the same shopping bag that was passed down to her and went shopping, NO PACKAGING, and therefore no litter, no big dumps, and No need to be concerned about waste. And, And, And because of this there was less water used and less power required.

Global warming is caused also by the dreaded "AIR CONDITIONING" in houses and CARS. 

Also all those freezers, washing machines, dryers.....you name it, it's there, and all of these items are causing global warming. 

Get serious guys, we're the ones causing global warming, due to waste and lazyness.


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 December 2007)

ok - Here's what NASA have on their website 
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html

Here's graph of temp to 2000
http://veimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/9929/a001008_pre.jpg

We are not just talking about Global Warming / Climate Change

We are talking RAPID Global Warming - totally unprecedented in history...



> Global Warming Global warming is an increase in the average temperature of Earth's surface. *Since the late 1800's, the global average temperature has increased about 0.7 to 1.4 degrees F (0.4 to 0.8 degrees C). Many experts estimate that the average temperature will rise an additional 2.5 to 10.4 degrees F (1.4 to 5.8 degrees C) by 2100. That rate of increase would be much larger than most past rates of increase. *






> Scientists worry that human societies and natural ecosystems might not adapt to rapid climate changes. An ecosystem consists of the living organisms and physical environment in a particular area. Global warming could cause much harm, so countries throughout the world drafted an agreement called the Kyoto Protocol to help limit it.
> 
> Causes of global warming
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 December 2007)

continued  (from article on NASA home page)



> Limiting CO2 emissions Two effective techniques for limiting CO2 emissions would be (1) to replace fossil fuels with energy sources that do not emit CO2, and (2) to use fossil fuels more efficiently.
> 
> Alternative energy sources that do not emit CO2 include the wind, sunlight, nuclear energy, and underground steam. Devices known as wind turbines can convert wind energy to electric energy. Solar cells can convert sunlight to electric energy, and various devices can convert solar energy to useful heat. Geothermal power plants convert energy in underground steam to electric energy.
> 
> ...


----------



## noirua (14 December 2007)

Hey 2020, That last bit about computers helping. All these millions, probably a billion computers are all using extra energy and all that metal and plastic used in making them, and the PACKAGING to deliver them in. Then all the rubbish when disposing of all the CRT monitors and Windows 95 and 98 computers - what a load of rubbish. ( not your post 2020, excellent as always, just the mountains of rubbish leave me fuming.)


----------



## numbercruncher (14 December 2007)

noirua said:


> Hey 2020, That last bit about computers helping. All these millions, probably a billion computers are all using extra energy and all that metal and plastic used in making them, and the PACKAGING to deliver them in. Then all the rubbish when disposing of all the CRT monitors and Windows 95 and 98 computers - what a load of rubbish. ( not your post 2020, excellent as always, just he mountains of rubbish leave me fuming.)





Valid point Noirua,

But on the flipside billions of email instead of printed stuff not to mention transporting the printed stuff. People study/work from home instead of driving across the city, lots of things, the waste probably balances with the savings - not down playing it , IT waste is becoming a huge problem - I couldnt imagine a world without the Internet and Computers - Id probably go crazy and bankrupt lol.


----------



## chops_a_must (14 December 2007)

noirua said:


> Hey 2020, That last bit about computers helping. All these millions, probably a billion computers are all using extra energy and all that metal and plastic used in making them, and the PACKAGING to deliver them in. Then all the rubbish when disposing of all the CRT monitors and Windows 95 and 98 computers - what a load of rubbish. ( not your post 2020, excellent as always, just the mountains of rubbish leave me fuming.)




Well, murdoch uni had a computer recycling programme, that was incredibly successful. Unfortunately the uni have found it necessary to take over the guild rooms that this programmed required, without recompense. Not bad considering our Uni advertise as, and is regarded as, the world leader in environmental studies.


----------



## white_goodman (14 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> ok - Here's what NASA have on their website
> http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html
> 
> Here's graph of temp to 2000
> ...





look at the data range on the graph...it fails to acknowledge the previous few hundred years, where are the numbers on the side...odds on the graph is only measuring a range of 1 or 2 degrees, also it doesnt say when it finishes, the last date is 1980.. neone gonna acknowledge since 2000 roughly temperature has stalled


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 December 2007)

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6216&highlight=nasa&page=3

white...
Those gridlines on Y axis are 0.2 deg C each.  (i think lol - tbc) 
(but your job is to go to NASA and get the exact numbers right? lol - since you are interested in facts yes?)


Shinbone - if they were degrees we'd have closed down the barrier reef long ago.

btw,  Note the bit about ...  if we stopped making CO2e NOW,  the earth would still be warming in 2100.   (PS on looking back - maybe I didn't include that sentence in my summary - you'll find it in the article on NASA website) 

This is the Titanic we are trying to turn around here...



> Since the late 1800's, the global average temperature has increased about 0.7 to 1.4 degrees F (0.4 to 0.8 degrees C). Many experts estimate that the average temperature will rise an additional 2.5 to 10.4 degrees F (1.4 to 5.8 degrees C) by 2100. That rate of increase would be much larger than most past rates of increase.




btw, have a look at post #208 for the previous 1000 years - we are hotter than any of em !


----------



## --B-- (14 December 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Look even if this small extremist fringe group of people denying climate change turned out to be correct, we need to clean up our planet and stop treating it like a toilet ..... I like that Indian proverb ...




lol. now youre denying the deniers.

no doubt there are people who wholeheartedly deny GW however there also exists a large and growing group of people who simly ask for scientific evidence. 




> Dont you love how the deniers are now the Extremists and the acceptors are now considered realists represented by main stream society ?




according to you.


----------



## numbercruncher (14 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> btw,  Note the bit about ...  if we stopped making CO2e NOW,  the earth would still be warming in 2100.
> 
> This is the Titanic we are trying to turn around here...





Exactly ! Pretty scary really.

Need stop population Growth for a start, China is very comendable in this area.

Capatalism needs a whole rethink, Its too dependant on Growth, without growth it seems destined to collapse on itself .... clocks ticking 

When you think about it, society doesnt need everyone working producing consuming poluting .... people should be encouraged to not work not produce not reproduce .... as long as they are self sufficent, theres np! Maybe Socialism is the only concept compatable with halting our problems ? ,,


----------



## Rafa (14 December 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Capatalism needs a whole rethink, Its too dependant on Growth, without growth it seems destined to collapse on itself .... clocks ticking
> 
> When you think about it, society doesnt need everyone working producing consuming poluting .... people should be encouraged to not work not produce not reproduce .... as long as they are self sufficent, theres np! Maybe Socialism is the only concept compatable with halting our problems ? ,,




Its strange, the one thing that can save the planet is a good old fashions recession.... but guess what... the US feds are busy slashing interest rates and injecting liquidity so we can keep growing 

But given that no one is happy with anyone that imposes any sort of financial hardship.... (i.e. recession we had to have, floating dollar, gst, heck... even work choices, increase in water / electricity costs...)... what hope is there, for anything usefull to happen!

And as for socialism...

Socialism is probably the biggest cause of global warming, lot more than capitalism... with things such as welfare, cheap healthcare, unionised workforces, (i.e. no slaves) etc people who should have fallen off the end of the conveyor belt a long long time ago are bloody still out there consuming and polluting

(hows that for some controversy for a friday afternoon... )

ps: If i am going to be quoted, please quote in entirety so the context is understood... hehehe


----------



## white_goodman (14 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6216&highlight=nasa&page=3
> 
> white...
> Those gridlines on Y axis are 0.2 deg C each.  (i think lol - tbc)
> ...




ok can i jsut say to you extend your data range...dont focus on 100 years or a thousand years.. go even further back... trends emerge when u look back thosands even millions of years... what are these trends... that cliamte change is cyclical and weve had far worse 'global warming' in this earths past..

can someone tell me what the big deal is about the temp going up 0.2-0.8 degrees...seriously we are in a period of earths history known as the holocene period categorised by relatively stable temperature patterns... all climate change is cyclical and the sooner you "mainstreamers" realise and stop picking and choosing ur data ranges the better


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 December 2007)

white_goodman said:


> ok can i jsut say to you extend your data range...dont focus on 100 years or a thousand years.. go even further back... trends emerge when u look back thosands even millions of years... what are these trends... that cliamte change is cyclical and weve had far worse 'global warming' in this earths past..
> 
> can someone tell me what the big deal is about the temp going up 0.2-0.8 degrees...seriously we are in a period of earths history known as the holocene period categorised by relatively stable temperature patterns... all climate change is cyclical and the sooner you "mainstreamers" realise and stop picking and choosing ur data ranges the better




well white
one of us keeps pickin and choosin our range that's for sure lol

you just keep going back and back...
and in so doing (imo) you are just making your argument that we should do nothing now-here-today (!!) less and less meaningful / relevant. 

Here's that graph going back 10K years (from GGW swindle video) - seems to me we are almost at the holecene maximum - trouble is we are heading uphill bigtime. 

RAPID climate change is worse that moderate rate of change agreed?  plants and animals cannot adapt fast enough.  Nor can coral growth keep up with rising sea levels. etc . 

If you are saying that solar activity drives this - then have a look at the strange divergence between solar activity and global temp of late.  See if you are still so confident you can explain things using "non-human-interference" explanations.  

PS Please don't tell me I have to go back more than 10,000 years 

PS Here's the same graph in effect showing solar activity possibly explaining things to 1970 - but since then we are in "unchartered waters" and cannot explain temp rise other than "manmade" ...


2020hindsight said:


> Attenborough
> here's a quick summary


----------



## professor_frink (14 December 2007)

white_goodman said:


> ok can i jsut say to you extend your data range...dont focus on 100 years or a thousand years.. go even further back... trends emerge when u look back thosands even millions of years... what are these trends... that cliamte change is cyclical and weve had far worse 'global warming' in this earths past..
> 
> can someone tell me what the big deal is about the temp going up 0.2-0.8 degrees...seriously we are in a period of earths history known as the holocene period categorised by relatively stable temperature patterns... all climate change is cyclical and the sooner you "mainstreamers" realise and stop picking and choosing ur data ranges the better




Most people aren't going to look back that far- it would be devastating to the pro AGW case! And that wouldn't be popular at all.(2020, it would be appreciated if you don't make any comments about how I could care less about animals becoming extinct now that I've said that)


However, I'm surprised you don't seem concerned by the possibility of it getting quite a bit wamer though- what is just a short term spike on a chart that extends back a couple of hundred million years ago would be pretty devastating to life on the planet as it exists now(man made or not is largely irrelevant- it won't be pleasant either way)

Sure, it has been warmer than it is presently, and it has been quite a bit cooler than it is now too, but the chances of most of the human population surviving if we all have to try and move to greenland/Siberia are pretty slim. 

If it does get that warm quickly, I think us Aussies would be in a little bit of trouble- think most of the good spots in the northern hemisphere will be taken before we get there. Hopefully, Antarctica will be pleasant if it happens- us and the kiwis could get down there pretty quick, though I imagine there would be a pretty vicious war if Australia and New Zealand tried living on the same patch of land

*2020,*

not sure of the validity of this website(I'm sure I'm about to be told that it's funded by exxon), but there are heaps of graphs going back quite a bit more than 10,000 years.

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 December 2007)

professor_frink said:


> not sure of the validity of this website(I'm sure I'm about to be told that it's funded by exxon), but there are heaps of graphs going back quite a bit more than 10,000 years.
> 
> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/temperature/



frink - I'll look at it later - I notice it goes back to the dinosaurs - 65 million years etc - and then some.  
(very comforting lol)

As they say, too much brawn, and not enough brain - 
though as for that, the asteroid impact incident didn't help. 
At least the Swiss , with their nuclear shelters in their houses ( not sure if they are still compulsory but they were once) , will maybe emerge from one of those. :2 twocents

In that there are heaps of graphs there, maybe someone could print the one that they think is relevant ?  ( I personally don't think anything that old is particularly relevant :2 twocents )

I was more thinking about whether my grandkids would forgive me in 50 years time, lol  

The bad news, in 100 years they'll blame us for not acting faster and more dramatically; also the fact that modern man is getting obese, his body will give off more CO2E I assume (?); 

the good news? in 100 years from now, we'll be too busy stoking fires in Hell to notice a bit of global warming up topside.   ) :evilburn:

PS read into this one as you may ...  :bonk: 



> Cardinal Pell says in the past, pagans sacrificed (animals and even) humans in vain attempts to placate the gods but today they demand a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.




Sure m8 - the trick was to sacrifice the stupid ones   :viking:


----------



## white_goodman (14 December 2007)

coincidence that mars and earth are heating up at pretty much exactly the same rate... must be all those probes we send there polluting the joint


----------



## Scuba (14 December 2007)

I am amazed that tempers have not flared here yet...

The evidence freaks are claiming they need proof in the form of science.

Has it not been the case in science for time memorial that "theory" (ie Darwin, Einstein, Newton to name a few) as the current best explaination/ best guess in so many cases has been taken as fact until the technology to define and therefore measure "catches up" and proves or disproves these theories?

Based on the possible risks, would we not be safer in accepting and acting upon Global warming as science's current theory and treating it as fact until the ability comes to disprove the theory? 

Whitegoods and B seem to have this idea that because of their "idealistic opinions" they have the need/want/urge/right to stop the rest of the world acting to change something which is currently the belief of a majority of the world's scientists within the related disciplines.

It's a little bit like standing in a hole and not seeing the gas because it's not coloured but telling everyone there's nothing to worry about because they haven't got proof its happening...


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 December 2007)

white_goodman said:


> coincidence that mars and earth are heating up at pretty much exactly the same rate... must be all those probes we send there polluting the joint




gee whiz white
you're dredging up some hoary old chestnuts now... 
We went into this on the GGW swindle thread btw. (posts #96 to #103 etc there ) 

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=143652&highlight=mars#post143652


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Cardinal Pell says in the past, pagans sacrificed (animals and even) humans in vain attempts to placate the gods but today they demand a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.



I mean that is such an insensitive comment from a man of the cloth - 
you want to see some animals (and even humans) sacrificed on the altar of human stupidity ... and assuming you haven't seen enough in the current and recent droughts ...   just wait a few more years


----------



## numbercruncher (14 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> I mean that is such an insensitive comment from a man of the cloth -
> you want to see some animals (and even humans) sacrificed on the altar of human stupidity ... and assuming you haven't seen enough in the current and recent droughts ...   just wait a few more years





Arguably this has already happened, lets think past draughts and think Floods of Asia, California fires, Hurricane Katrina etc etc etc ..... Enviromental refugee is going to be a biggy in the future me thinks 


Heres an Extremist Scientist with a "solution" 



> Dr. Eric R. Pianka , a University of Texas evolutionary ecologist advocated for the extermination of 90 percent of the human species in a most horrible and painful manner, by releasing the Ebola virus - all in the name of “saving the Planet”.  Not only he received a standing ovation, but the Texas Academy of Science  honored him with its 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist Scientist award.




http://www.zoliblog.com/2006/04/2/dr-doom-plans-to-save-earth-by-wiping-out-90%25-of-humans/

Whoa there is a new concept, we have Religous terrorists, maybe there is Enviromental terrorists a lurking too ?


----------



## Aussiejeff (16 December 2007)

OK folks!

An agreement to have future talks about an agreement to limit emissions by 25-40% by 2020 has finally been agreed to in Bali. Therefore, regardless of where you sit on the fence, *something* might just happen with regard to a shift to a lower emissions lifestyle in the near/medium future.

So, what is the outlook for Oz alternative energy companies now? Does this *faux* agreement amount to anything more than "hot air"? Hopefully, the mere fact that Uncle Sammy ACTUALLY BACKED DOWN AT ALL to the watered down agreement might be seen as a positive sign.... but will that be enough to *energise* the alternatives sector? 

Chiz,

AJ


----------



## numbercruncher (16 December 2007)

Yes that agreement is just weak and rather pathetic, Im not sure any of the other US candidates have a strong Climate Change plan do they ? Rest of the world should just gang up on the US and say sure do what ever you want, but face the carbon tax on your exports.


----------



## rederob (16 December 2007)

white_goodman said:


> ok can i jsut say to you extend your data range...dont focus on 100 years or a thousand years.. go even further back... trends emerge when u look back thosands even millions of years... what are these trends... that cliamte change is cyclical and weve had far worse 'global warming' in this earths past..
> 
> can someone tell me what the big deal is about the temp going up 0.2-0.8 degrees...seriously we are in a period of earths history known as the holocene period categorised by relatively stable temperature patterns... all climate change is cyclical and the sooner you "mainstreamers" realise and stop picking and choosing ur data ranges the better



No scientists reject the cyclical nature of climate adjusments.
What most are now saying is that the pace of change is too rapid to be explained by nature alone. (see, for example: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jDFNYIToh6q3mS6UDO8p3g0w2Xyw)
I believe Bali will be seen as too little too late in 20 years time.
Western economies that have spewed out incredible emissions over the past century have been unwilling to compromise because third world countries are now doing what they did (albeit 100 years later).
You, the average reader of this post, can make a real (although small) contribution to reducing emissions by using less electricity, using public transport, and driving the car only when it's essential.  
There are about 4 billion people who don't have those options.
They would like to have electricity (even running water), and might aspire to owning a car, but probably never will in their lifetime.
And we want to impose on their nations targets they can have no influence over!
Rudd's stance on the details at Bali is uninspiring - I think quite pathetic - and smacks of the ongoing hypocrisy western economies bring to this debate.
The US remains highly critical of China yet its new investment in hydro, nuclear and solar is so far ahead of the US it makes a mockery of their stance.
In a few year's time we won't have to worry too much about government inaction as the oil paradigm we rely on for our present lifestyles will set another, less arbitrary, agenda for change.


----------



## numbercruncher (16 December 2007)

Lots of people praise China here, and I know they deserve praise in some areas, but lets be honest, 80pc of Chinas electricity comes from Coal fired plants, they are shockers.




> A GREAT coal rush is under way across China on a scale not seen anywhere since the 19th century.
> Its consequences have been detected half a world away in toxic clouds so big that they can seen from space, drifting across the Pacific to California laden with microscopic particles of chemicals that cause cancer and diseases of the heart and lung.
> 
> Nonetheless, the Chinese plan to build no fewer than 500 new coal-fired power stations, adding to some 2,000, most of them unmodernised, that spew smoke, carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere.




http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article1265343.ece

Best thing China is doing for Climate change is reducing its population over time with the one child policy, need a few more Countries to follow suit, imho.

Australia is in a perfect position here, force through Clean coal technologys such as what ESI does for example.




> China’s energy growth simply has no precedent in the world… Consider that just the growth in China’s energy requirements from 2002-2005 (over 105 Gigawatts) was equivalent to the current annual energy demand of Japan.




http://www.commodityonline.com/news/topstory/newsdetails.php?id=4258

Both China and US (+others) are the biggest part of the problem and obviously the most important part of the solution.


----------



## billhill (16 December 2007)

numbercruncher said:
			
		

> im not sure any of the other US candidates have a strong Climate Change plan do they ?




As far as i know McCain, Obama and Clinton have pledged a cap and trade on carbon emissions. Surprisingly for a republican McCain seems to have the strongest emphasis on doing something about climate change. But then again Arnold Schwartznegger who is republican has a policy as aggressive as the europeans.


----------



## chops_a_must (16 December 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Lots of people praise China here, and I know they deserve praise in some areas, but lets be honest, 80pc of Chinas electricity comes from Coal fired plants, they are shockers.



And what are the emissions per capita?

The fact remains China has a percentage of installed power generation coming from renewable sources, which is greater than just about every western country. And as long as that keeps increasing, I fail to see the problem.


----------



## numbercruncher (16 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> And what are the emissions per capita?
> 
> The fact remains China has a percentage of installed power generation coming from renewable sources, which is greater than just about every western country. And as long as that keeps increasing, I fail to see the problem.




Im not sure on the per capita emissions, but cant be too high considering factory workers earn 50 cents an hour.

Problem is Climate Change is a problem of epic proportions, sure if their renewables keep increasing thats great, but non renewable emissions are rising like 8x faster at a time where reducing carbon output is the only game plan.

US = no1 polluter China = no2 polluter , our futures and potentially our survival relies on these guys playing the game, if not, lets gang up on them, World vrs them, only choice imho .... Also just depends how seriously people take Climate Change i guess. Less emissions now for less disasters in the future, seen as we seem addicted to economic growth im tipping disaster (for future gens), but investing in renewable


----------



## numbercruncher (16 December 2007)

Heres a good link to per capita emissions .....

#1   Qatar: 40.6735 per 1,000 people   
#2   United Arab Emirates: 28.213 per 1,000 people   
#3   Kuwait: 25.0499 per 1,000 people   
#4   Bahrain: 20.0253 per 1,000 people   
#5   United States: 19.4839 per 1,000 people    
#6   Luxembourg: 17.977 per 1,000 people   
#7   Trinidad and Tobago: 16.8278 per 1,000 people   
#8   Australia: 16.5444 per 1,000 people   
#9   Canada: 15.8941 per 1,000 people   
#10   Singapore: 13.8137 per 1,000 people  
 rest on link



> www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi_percap-environment-co2-emissions-per-capita




Logically we cant define allowable carbon outputs on countries populations alone, Australia for example, very small population, If the rest of the world wants us to keep supplying them with Wheat, Iron ore , Meat etc etc etc they obviously need us to be higher emitters ..... If they want our emissions lower, stop buying our stuff 


The worlds Lowest emitter is Congo, Democratic Republic of the: 0.0123428 per 1,000 people  compared to the highest Qatar: 40.6735 per 1,000 people   , now just Imagine the potential disaster when the Worlds 4b people with tiny tiny emissions come a banging for the "Western" type lifestyle , wow.


----------



## rederob (16 December 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> The worlds Lowest emitter is Congo, Democratic Republic of the: 0.0123428 per 1,000 people  compared to the highest Qatar: 40.6735 per 1,000 people   , now just Imagine the potential disaster when the Worlds 4b people with tiny tiny emissions come a banging for the "Western" type lifestyle , wow.



China came in at #80 and India at #113.
If Australia had double its present population it would almost match India's total carbon footprint.
Luckily we can still beat them at cricket, even if their coaches are Australian!


----------



## numbercruncher (16 December 2007)

Well there is one spot to save some Carbon, seen as Australia will keep winning cricket for eternity, lets just save the hasle and have the awards posted to us each year, no need for a match 


Anyone as a comparison here is worst emitters per Country, regardless of population.

#1   United States: 5,762,050   
#2   China: 3,473,600   
#3   Russia: 1,540,360   
#4   Japan: 1,224,740   
#5   India: 1,007,980   
#6   Germany: 837,425   
#7   United Kingdom: 558,225   
#8   Canada: 521,404   
#9   Italy: 446,596   
#10   Mexico: 385,075   

more here

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi-environment-co2-emissions

These figures are 2003 I understand, so im thinking China would of had a bug Jump since.


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 December 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Heres a good link to per capita emissions .....
> 
> #1   Qatar: 40.6735 per 1,000 people
> #2   United Arab Emirates: 28.213 per 1,000 people
> ...



nc, those numbers differ from what I posted on #121 1nd #127 - which came from the following wikipedia website  (that showed Aus worse that USA for instance) but no change to your conclusions I guess. 

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

pretty good outcome in Bali I guess - could have been worse that's for sure, and at least they took it seriously -  and now that almost everyone is on board, - and everyone knows that everyone else is serious, - and indeed USA were jeered - all good -  now maybe people (incl USA) will start to take the next step seriously as well.  

great start for Penny Wong  -


----------



## numbercruncher (16 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> great start for Penny Wong  -





Hell yes, Great start for the Labor party ! I feel like these guys are getting more done in Weeks than the "alternative" can/would/did in years!


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 December 2007)

nc, lol - anyone remember how much Gough Whitlam achieved in the first week? - it was phenomenol lol
I personally don't mind if Rudd takes his time (by comparison ) 

Here's a poem to Penny baby 
she'll be applauded "white and Wongly" after this .   
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=235314&highlight=bali#post235314


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 December 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Well there is one spot to save some Carbon, seen as Australia will keep winning cricket for eternity, lets just save the hasle and have the awards posted to us each year, no need for a match
> 
> 
> Anyone as a comparison here is worst emitters per Country, regardless of population.
> ...



Don't forget that much of China's growth is in exports.

The emissions resulting from making something I just bought that's made in China are quite properly the responsibility of Australia, as the consumer, not China. 

Just as emissions from a power station are quite properly the responsibility of me for leaving the lights on, not the power generation business which simply supplied what I chose to consume.

You won't hear much of that sort of thinking however simply because it makes all the "outsourcing" countries that export services etc and import minerals and manufactured goods look bad and they're largely the ones pushing the issue anyway.

I'd be surprised if Australia was anywhere near as bad as the US if emissions were accounted for that way. The US has exported a lot of it's emissions to China etc whereas Australia's mining industry, smelters etc are effectively an emissions import. A lot of European countries including the UK would look quite a bit worse too - hence it's not being pushed.


----------



## numbercruncher (16 December 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> Don't forget that much of China's growth is in exports.
> 
> The emissions resulting from making something I just bought that's made in China are quite properly the responsibility of Australia, as the consumer, not China.
> 
> .





Yes i understand their Growth is mainly from exports, but if China didnt have such a good deal on the currency thing .....

Thats how Carbon taxes will help level it up a bit if these countrys dont reduce emissions. All stuff made that we "dont" need , like TVs, Toys and Gizmos made using dirty technologhy should face the tax, Give countries the choice, Invest upfront for renewables or pay for them via trade penalties. Just an idea


----------



## Aussiejeff (16 December 2007)

rederob said:


> China came in at #80 and India at #113.
> If Australia had double its present population it would almost match India's total carbon footprint.
> Luckily we can still beat them at cricket, even if their coaches are Australian!




Cricketers should do their bit too. More 20/20 games... NO running between wickets (less CO2 from the batter's breath!) ... just slog from the crease .... of course, Gilly has the lowest CO2 footprint! 



Chiz,


AJ


----------



## numbercruncher (16 December 2007)

Even if we managed to beat Climate change and rolled out renewable everything, how could Western Governments and Indeed capitalism survive the eventual fall in GDP ?

I mean lets say every home became self sufficent, Harvested its own Power via Solar and Wind, had an Electric Car that was recharged/fueled at home, Collected own rainwater, Grew own food etc - How could the "system" survive without the revenue from things like 50c per litre tax on Fuel and x amount of tax per Megawatt of Electricity, and Charging for water, and taxing food etc ?


----------



## numbercruncher (17 December 2007)

> 2007: worst year for the environment
> 
> 
> As the politiicans in Bali debate how to deal with climate change, scientists on the other side of the world were reporting ever more devastating impacts from global warming.
> ...




more in article ...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3050718.ece

We are looking increasingly doomed.

They need to make low carbon footprints "popular" perhaps run hard hitting adverts (like anti-smokings ads) showing how were all gonna die and cook or something


----------



## --B-- (17 December 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> They need to make low carbon footprints "popular" perhaps run hard hitting adverts (like anti-smokings ads) showing how were all gonna die and cook or something




ah yes, propagate fear to scare them into action... 

thats always been a favourite of greenies pushing their agenda..


----------



## numbercruncher (17 December 2007)

--B-- said:


> ah yes, propagate fear to scare them into action...
> 
> thats always been a favourite of greenies pushing their agenda..




True that, maybe they learnt from the likes of Bush, Howard and other neocons ? I mean if the neocons could convince the World that Iraqi children where running around with ebola tipped Intercontinental ballistic missles then surely Enviromentalists can convince the world of something thats measured, verified and unfolding before our very eyes ?


----------



## --B-- (17 December 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> True that, maybe they learnt from the likes of Bush, Howard and other neocons ?




lol. never miss a chance to talk about the evil bush and howard.

lucking St Kev is here now and everything will be roses, right?

i for one am glad kev is stalling a decision on kyoto targets and has committed our troops to afghanistan..



> I mean if the neocons could convince the World that Iraqi children where running around with ebola tipped Intercontinental ballistic missles then surely Enviromentalists can convince the world of something thats measured, verified and unfolding before our very eyes ?




ironically, both your silly examples appear completely incorrect


----------



## chops_a_must (17 December 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> True that, maybe they learnt from the likes of Bush, Howard and other neocons ? I mean if the neocons could convince the World that Iraqi children where running around with ebola tipped Intercontinental ballistic missles then surely Enviromentalists can convince the world of something thats measured, verified and unfolding before our very eyes ?




Classic.


----------



## numbercruncher (17 December 2007)

--B-- said:


> and has committed our troops to afghanistan..





Me too , I hope our guys get the task of Burning down opium crops, because for some reason Bush sucks at it ...


----------



## --B-- (17 December 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Me too , I hope our guys get the task of Burning down opium crops, because for some reason Bush sucks at it ...




i assume through your reluctance to post anything of substance, that you agree with me that greenie nutters rely on the tactic of propagating fear to the public, and that your silly example re Bush and Howard was quite irrelevant.

good to see.


----------



## ghotib (18 December 2007)

Smurf, you are not alone (but you prolly know that):

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/were-we-wrong-to-save-the-franklin/2007/12/17/1197740178873.html


----------



## rederob (18 December 2007)

--B-- said:


> ah yes, propagate fear to scare them into action...
> 
> thats always been a favourite of greenies pushing their agenda..



What agenda would that be?

A sustainable, peaceful, earth?

And not a drug riddled, war crazed, consumption oriented, wealth driven one?

Alas, I did vote green.


----------



## rederob (18 December 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Even if we managed to beat Climate change and rolled out renewable everything, how could Western Governments and Indeed capitalism survive the eventual fall in GDP ?
> 
> I mean lets say every home became self sufficent, Harvested its own Power via Solar and Wind, had an Electric Car that was recharged/fueled at home, Collected own rainwater, Grew own food etc - How could the "system" survive without the revenue from things like 50c per litre tax on Fuel and x amount of tax per Megawatt of Electricity, and Charging for water, and taxing food etc ?



There's a very simple answer....
For every home to become self sufficient requires a recapitalisation and investment in the means that make it thus.
Then we will need to produce almost a billion electric vehicles.
While the tax on our reinvestments can mitigate the more harmful effects on the least wealthy.

Needless to say, a rejigging of the global manufacturing base will have to occur to put in place a world that can no longer suck from the oil teat.


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 December 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> ..need to make low carbon footprints "popular" perhaps run hard hitting adverts (like anti-smokings ads) showing how were all gonna die and cook or something



"mankind / civilisation leave massive footprints ..
they're called deserts" 

gonna be interesting to watch how the next couple of (months and) years pan out - as they say "at least everyone is still talking" 

today's Fin Review...
"a public debate on emissions trading must take place soon" ..


----------



## chops_a_must (18 December 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Even if we managed to beat Climate change and rolled out renewable everything, how could Western Governments and Indeed capitalism survive the eventual fall in GDP ?
> 
> I mean lets say every home became self sufficent, Harvested its own Power via Solar and Wind, had an Electric Car that was recharged/fueled at home, Collected own rainwater, Grew own food etc - How could the "system" survive without the revenue from things like 50c per litre tax on Fuel and x amount of tax per Megawatt of Electricity, and Charging for water, and taxing food etc ?



You mean we might finally have to report all those things that are left out of GDP and GNP? Geez... those femo nazis will be happy.


----------



## --B-- (18 December 2007)

rederob said:


> What agenda would that be?
> 
> A sustainable, peaceful, earth?




oh they pretend to push this agenda and deep down i dont doubt they desire it however inherent among green fanatics is a deep hatred for technology, wealth, and basically all us 'evil' human beings.



> And not a drug riddled,




lol. im sure you are aware of the Greens stance on drugs?



> wealth driven one?




oh, you are a greeny. money = bad huh? ironic to see you on a stock forum though.



> Alas, I did vote green.




i believe you.


----------



## numbercruncher (18 December 2007)

B its never too late to join us, leave the dark side, the denier extremist fringe groups are being swept aside to be ruthlessly judged by history, maybe you could join us for a meditation circle and out of body experience where we hop on one foot and giggle like kookaburas while sharing a peace pipe? Maybe we could also partake in the ancient symbolic ritual of Burning 100 dollar bills and smashing iPods, at the end the grand master will reappear from the never world and cleanse you of your "evils"?


:


----------



## --B-- (21 December 2007)

Hi guys, ive come across some interesting reading for you.

Brief highlights of the US Senate report featuring over 400 international scientists:



> *Israel*: *Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem has authored almost 70 peer-reviewed studies and won several awards*. "First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes (both increase and decrease) of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the Industrial revolution (about 0.8C in 150 years or even 0.4C in the last 35 years) have occurred in Earth's climatic history. There's nothing special about the recent rise!"
> 
> *Russia*: *Russian scientist Dr. Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences has authored more than 300 studies, nine books, and a 2006 paper titled "The Evolution and the Prediction of Global Climate Changes on Earth."*  "Even if the concentration of ‘greenhouse gases' double man would not perceive the temperature impact," Sorochtin wrote.
> *Netherlands: Atmospheric scientist Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, a scientific pioneer in the development of numerical weather prediction and former director of research at The Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute, and an internationally recognized expert in atmospheric boundary layer processes,* "I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting - a six-meter sea level rise, fifteen times the IPCC number - entirely without merit," Tennekes wrote. "I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."
> ...





http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

comments and opinions are welcome and encouraged as usual!


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 December 2007)

-B- As long as you continue to vote "act on it anyway",  I don't have a problem


----------



## --B-- (21 December 2007)

got nothing 2020?

thats not surprising,. i didnt expect many of the GW alarmists to want to respond. after all theyre the ones banging on about a scientific 'consensus'.

PS: sorry to disappoint you but i didnt vote as you suggested.


----------



## numbercruncher (21 December 2007)

A report from the US senate with their own clear cut agenda of pandering to their corporate masters just doesnt cut it sorry.


----------



## wayneL (21 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> -B- As long as you continue to vote "act on it anyway",  I don't have a problem




But is anyone acting on it? Not from what I see.

What are you doing 20?


----------



## --B-- (21 December 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> A report from the US senate with their own clear cut agenda of pandering to their corporate masters just doesnt cut it sorry.




i assumed you would ignore the 400 scientists opinions numbercruncher. 

its difficult to consider something may not be quite as it seems when youre so blindly committed to it i suppose.


----------



## numbercruncher (21 December 2007)

--B-- said:


> i assumed you would ignore the 400 scientists opinions numbercruncher.
> 
> its difficult to consider something may not be quite as it seems when youre so blindly committed to it i suppose.





Ahh these teh same 400 you where telling us about that place there GW thermometers beside Airconditioners and Hot asphalt ?


----------



## --B-- (21 December 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Ahh these teh same 400 you where telling us about that place there GW thermometers beside Airconditioners and Hot asphalt ?




lol. i never said anything of the sort.

i note again with amusement you have nothing to say on the matter. 

i dont doubt that many such as yourself blindly follow the GW myth because its easier and because the media forces such rubbish down our throats daily. dismissing all else without contemplation tends to render your opinions less valid.


----------



## numbercruncher (21 December 2007)

--B-- said:


> lol. i never said anything of the sort.
> 
> i note again with amusement you have nothing to say on the matter.




Ahh ok sorry must of been one of the other deniers


----------



## --B-- (21 December 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Ahh ok sorry must of been one of the other deniers




oh yes. your standard definition is:

anyone who considers all the issues, who studies the science and who evaluates all the opinions = deniers.

bleat away.


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 December 2007)

wayneL said:


> But is anyone acting on it? Not from what I see.
> 
> What are you doing 20?




lol
ok -  I'm no longer taking flash photos because the battery need charging  

the other thing I've done is help to vote out the Howard Govt 

The big thing Wayne is to get the world using power sytems other than fossil fuel .   

You walking to your local pub is pissing in the windpower m8


----------



## wayneL (21 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> lol
> ok -  I'm no longer taking flash photos because the battery need charging
> 
> the other thing I've done is help to vote out the Howard Govt
> ...



It's OK to try and trivialize what I've decided to do (actually, taking into account your verbosity on the subject, it's a gross hypocrisy) but collectively, everybody walking to the local (plus everything else people can do as individuals, including campaigning for alternative fuels) can make a massive difference.

Join us doers 2020, and leave the likes of Al Bore to their talk and their monumental double standards.

From what I can gather, so far all your hot air is only adding to GW.


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 December 2007)

wayneL said:


> It's OK to try and trivialize what I've decided to do (actually, taking into account your verbosity on the subject, it's a gross hypocrisy) but collectively, everybody walking to the local (plus everything else people can do as individuals, including campaigning for alternative fuels) can make a massive difference.
> 
> Join us doers 2020, and leave the likes of Al Bore to their talk and their monumental double standards.
> 
> From what I can gather, so far all your hot air is only adding to GW.



getting personal now 

I could say ditto , but I won;t 
You're a mod after all
you know best


----------



## billhill (21 December 2007)

--B-- said:
			
		

> Brief highlights of the US Senate report featuring over 400 international scientists:




Just thought i would clarify some points regarding your report. First it was released by the environmental and public works comittee minority office which is the republican division of the commitee. The majority office is run by the democrats and no such report was filed by them. Also i was unable to locate the names of the senators that put this report together so if you can provide that for srutiny it would be appreciated.

The minority office is run by a senator james inhofe. I checked his background and he is considered and extremely conservative republican with a long history of denying climate change. 


> Inhofe has a history of opposing environmental groups and global warming initiatives



http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=James_M._Inhofe#Campaign_contributions

He also appears to be a big beneficiary of oil and gas interests.



> Boxer replaced Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, a Republican who has received $572,000 from the oil and gas industry since President Bush took office””more than all but three other members of Congress. .




http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/347/oil-politics.html

Not saying the report is not valid but merely pointing out the interests behind it for the purposes of balance.


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> getting personal now
> 
> I could say ditto , but I won;t
> You're a mod after all
> you know best



was a bit rushed when I sent that one
just that I was busy sending a container of manufactured goods to China.

but rest assured, I walked rather than drove whenever I could.


----------



## billhill (21 December 2007)

wayneL said:
			
		

> Join us doers 2020, and leave the likes of Al Bore to their talk and their monumental double standards.




Wayne i don't understand the criticisms you have towards al gore and other GW activists. You seem to take on a position that everyone who is concerned about GW needs to "walk to the pub". Sure things like this set a good example and hopefully over time culture and behaviour will change. But expecting all individuals to take the resposibilty is unrealistic. People are concerned but many have too much else on their plate to really concentrate on doing much themselves about it. Hence why people would rather allow legislators to do it for them. That way they are doing their bit and don't have to think about it along the way. Why don't people do anything about GW individually, the same reason people don't quit smoking. Its psychological and its ingrained in us through evolution.

As for al gore you obviously don't have a high oppinion of him but i hope you can agree that he has done more for GW awareness then any other person in the world. His movie probably single handedly made GW an issue in australia and probably led to more agressive environmental policy in this country then otherwise would have been. Thats surely more then just doing his bit regardless of his personal life.


----------



## numbercruncher (21 December 2007)

Many may not realise but Dubbya is a closet greeny, he knows what the energy starved future holds 


Check out his diggs ....



> The passive-solar house is positioned to absorb winter sunlight, warming the interior walkways and walls of the residence. Geothermal heat pumps circulate water through pipes buried 300 feet (100 m) deep in the ground. A 25,000 US gallon (151 m ³) underground cistern collects rainwater gathered from roof urns; wastewater from sinks, toilets, and showers cascades into underground purifying tanks and is also funneled into the cistern. The water from the cistern is then used to irrigate the landscaping around the home




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


----------



## --B-- (21 December 2007)

billhill said:


> Just thought i would clarify some points regarding your report. First it was released by the environmental and public works comittee minority office which is the republican division of the commitee. The majority office is run by the democrats and no such report was filed by them. Also i was unable to locate the names of the senators that put this report together so if you can provide that for srutiny it would be appreciated.
> 
> The minority office is run by a senator james inhofe. I checked his background and he is considered and extremely conservative republican with a long history of denying climate change.
> 
> ...




oh ffs.

i suppose you hold the same reservations of any pro-GW reports you read? or is it only the ones who cast doubt on the GW debate that are possible open to bias?

you pick out one guy with a link to the EVIL oil and cite this as a reason to doubt the content of the report.

the fact is 400 credible scientists have put forward these views and have raised valid point which many (including yourself it seems) wil happily ignore because it doesnt fit in with the hype and catastrophe you all cheer about.


----------



## --B-- (21 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> was a bit rushed when I sent that one
> just that I was busy sending a container of manufactured goods to China.
> 
> but rest assured, I walked rather than drove whenever I could.




its quite amusing watching you debate an issue and then shrink away and throw in a few jokes when challenged to cover up the fact that you, as wayne put it, are full of hot air.


----------



## --B-- (21 December 2007)

billhill said:


> As for al gore you obviously don't have a high oppinion of him but i hope you can agree that he has done more for GW awareness then any other person in the world. His movie probably single handedly made GW an issue in australia and probably led to more agressive environmental policy in this country then otherwise would have been. Thats surely more then just doing his bit regardless of his personal life.




sure,. its amazing what lies and deception can do to hype up a 'cause'.

and its even easier to get the masses on board when they dont have the time or inclination to research the material on such an issue.


----------



## numbercruncher (21 December 2007)

> [edit] Political pressure on scientists
> 
> 
> Many climate scientists state that they are put under enormous pressure to distort or hide any scientific results which suggest that human activity is to blame for global warming. A survey of climate scientists which was reported to the US House Oversight and Government Reform Committee noted that "Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change', 'global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of communications." These scientists were pressured to tailor their reports on global warming to fit the Bush administration's climate change scepticism. In some cases, this occurred at the request of a former oil-industry lobbyist.[165]




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


----------



## --B-- (21 December 2007)

lol. a wiki page titled 'the global warming controversy'

wow. im convinced.


----------



## numbercruncher (21 December 2007)

So youll believe a so called 400 Scientists from a bush administration paper yet Ignore groups like the UN and G8 and virtually every government on the planet ?  we really dont have much more to discuss on the subject then do we ? no use trying to convince the unconvincable ! Even Dubbya is backdooring you with his fully green tech ranch ......


----------



## --B-- (21 December 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> So youll believe a so called 400 Scientists from a bush administration paper yet Ignore groups like the UN and G8 and virtually every government on the planet ?  we really dont have much more to discuss on the subject then do we ? no use trying to convince the unconvincable ! Even Dubbya is backdooring you with his fully green tech ranch ......




no numbercruncher. im not convinced either way, simply presenting evidence that there really is no scientific consensus as many claim and that there is clearly more to the debate that the reports generated by the IPCC.

to simply disregard the opinions of these scientists because the paper comes from the US senate, yet treat as gospel the findings of the green backed IPCC is quite hypocritical.


----------



## billhill (21 December 2007)

B get over yourself. Your aggressive stance against anyone who criticises your points really smacks of a childish and immature way to debate this issue and i'm quite sick of it. My point is that your report is tainted by the oil interests that back the man who's office released it and presumably commissioned it. Fossil fuel interest have a known history of stifling the GW debate in dishonest and deceitful ways. I never said the report wasn't valid. However i trust its contents less then i otherwise would have if no oil interests had been involved. others have a right to know this information so don't get angry because your precious little report isn't as sqeaky clean as you think.


----------



## --B-- (21 December 2007)

billhill said:


> B get over yourself. Your aggressive stance against anyone who criticises your points really smacks of a childish and immature way to debate this issue and i'm quite sick of it.




my intention is not to come across aggressive. however when no one raises a valid point except to point out the the report comes from the US etc etc its quite difficult to debate.



> My point is that your report is tainted by the oil interests that back the man who's office released it and presumably commissioned it. Fossil fuel interest have a known history of stifling the GW debate in dishonest and deceitful ways. I never said the report wasn't valid. However i trust its contents less then i otherwise would have if no oil interests had been involved. others have a right to know this information so don't get angry because your precious little report isn't as sqeaky clean as you think.




fair enough and i apologise if ive come across aggressive

as i asked earlier, do you hold the same scepticism about reports backed by green groups such as those released by the IPCC?


----------



## numbercruncher (21 December 2007)

It seems everthing now a days should be viewed with a certain amount of scepticism, but the Bush administration is about the only Government clinging to this GW doesnt exist theory, hell state Governments all over the US have accepted it and started acting - Climate change costs everyone eventuallly, one way or another. I can certainly understand the US fear from a financial perspective, they are already faltering and being forced to reduce their carbon footprint could possibly be the straw that breaks the camels back.

But surely peopel can put 2 and 2 together, the only Country (or Government more precisely) denying Climate change , dragging their feet at Bali are also the ones producing this report, Id give the report the respect it deserves if it was produced by anyone except the Bush administration because it clearly fits their agenda and position of denial.


----------



## --B-- (21 December 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> It seems everthing now a days should be viewed with a certain amount of scepticism, but the Bush administration is about the only Government clinging to this GW doesnt exist theory, hell state Governments all over the US have accepted it and started acting - Climate change costs everyone eventuallly, one way or another. I can certainly understand the US fear from a financial perspective, they are already faltering and being forced to reduce their carbon footprint could possibly be the straw that breaks the camels back.]




if catastrophic climate change is in fact a myth its not going to cost anyone excelt the gullible idiots pouring billions into the 'cause'.



> But surely peopel can put 2 and 2 together, the only Country (or Government more precisely) denying Climate change , dragging their feet at Bali are also the ones producing this report, Id give the report the respect it deserves if it was produced by anyone except the Bush administration because it clearly fits their agenda and position of denial.




do you think those governments pushing the GW barrow and investing billions into it are going to go to the trouble to compile reports from 400 scientists who dispute the IPCC claims?


----------



## billhill (21 December 2007)

apologie accepted. Obviously all information that is backed by by interest groups has got to be viewed with some scepticism and this certainly includes green groups, some of which i admit go over the top. However in saying this Green groups are not businesses or corporations with massive financial risks at play with most acting on what they beleive to be moral issues so IMO have less of an interest in reporting biased information. I admit that as so called green companies gain more power and influence we shall see biased reports backed by them for their own self interests just as oil and gas do. However at the moment these interest groups are dwarfed in their influence of legislators and  the like when compared to the fossil fuels industry. Basically this makes me more inclined to believe what a green group says about the environment rather then an oil corporation.


----------



## --B-- (21 December 2007)

billhill said:


> apologie accepted. Obviously all information that is backed by by interest groups has got to be viewed with some scepticism and this certainly includes green groups, some of which i admit go over the top. However in saying this Green groups are not businesses or corporations with massive financial risks at play with most acting on what they beleive to be moral issues so IMO have less of an interest in reporting biased information. I admit that as so called green companies gain more power and influence we shall see biased reports backed by them for their own self interests just as oil and gas do. However at the moment these interest groups are dwarfed in their influence of legislators and  the like when compared to the fossil fuels industry. Basically this makes me more inclined to believe what a green group says about the environment rather then an oil corporation.




ok i can respoect where youre coming from however i do disagree.

i think green groups push their agendas at all cost because without doing so they will not exist. they have billions at stake in funding and to think this does not represent a risk is quite incorrect imo.

im not disputing oil companies have a lot at stake however i do not treat green groups any more or less scepticism. it seems many are willing to give the green groups the benefit of the doubt simply because they see green = good and business = bad.


----------



## numbercruncher (21 December 2007)

--B-- said:


> if catastrophic climate change is in fact a myth its not going to cost anyone excelt the gullible idiots pouring billions into the 'cause'.






Yet the Trillion dollars poured into Iraq by Bush and the other NeoCons to shore up the oil reserves was a good investment ?

Ironically that would of been enough to make the US virtually fully Green with little or no need for ME oil ..... could bet your bottom dollar they would of then been the staunchest supporters of Kyoto 

Funny old world eh ?


----------



## billhill (21 December 2007)

> ok i can respoect where youre coming from however i do disagree.
> 
> i think green groups push their agendas at all cost because without doing so they will not exist. they have billions at stake in funding and to think this does not represent a risk is quite incorrect imo.
> 
> im not disputing oil companies have a lot at stake however i do not treat green groups any more or less scepticism. it seems many are willing to give the green groups the benefit of the doubt simply because they see green = good and business = bad.




Yes B these points are very valid. Green groups do indeed have alot at stake as well and it angers me when i see groups resorting to deceitful tactics often when militant greenies hijack them. There are however alot of sincere green groups that do act in a sensible way and therfore can be considered of greater moral integrety then an oil or gas company. After all generally Green groups = acting in the interests of the environment Business = acting in the interests of their shareholders.


----------



## numbercruncher (21 December 2007)

Learnt something else today, China emits more c02 than the US @!



> China has overtaken the US as the biggest producer of carbon dioxide, a development that will increase anxiety about its role in driving man-made global warming and will add to pressure on the world's politicians to reach an agreement on climate change that includes the Chinese economy.




http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/jun/20/china.carbonemissions


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 December 2007)

2020]Don't you think we should at least try? [/quote]
[quote=-B-] "try what? to 'fix' the climate? [B]anything that reduces pollution [U]is a good thing[/U]. ive never said otherwise[/B]."[/quote]
[quote=2020]-B- As long as you continue to vote "act on it anyway" said:


> sorry to disappoint you but i didnt vote as you suggested.




-B-
From a previous post where I accused you of contradicting yourself.

Now I realise you are far too cunning to fall for that, lol - you choose to differentiate between 
a) whether you agree / agreed  to act on climate change / reducing pollution; 
 and 
b) whether you actually posted a vote in this insignificant little corner of the world.


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 December 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> Learnt something else today, China emits more c02 than the US @!
> 
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/jun/20/china.carbonemissions
> 
> View attachment 16124



nc, That photo reminds me of a quote by Ayn Rand (US novelist - ironically she wrote "Atlas Shrugged"  )

Ayn Rand ........Here's what she said about pollution:- back in the 60's granted - but we are reaping the rewards today ...


> "If it were true that a heavy concentration of industry is destructive to human life, one would find life expectancy declining in the more advanced countries. But it has been rising steadily. Here are the figures on life expectancy in the United States:
> 1900 - 47.3 years
> 1920 - 53 years
> 1940 - 60 years
> ...




btw, adjusted for population....    per capita ,  USA 24.3 tonnes , China 3.9 tonnes


----------



## numbercruncher (21 December 2007)

She needed to sell her smoke stacks !

If the truth be known, small pox vax, penicillin etc jumped human lifespans ......


Ever done your family tree ? Im back about 500 years on mine, people lived into 60s plus all the time in my tree, 1841 census ggggggggdaddy was still working his Business as a master wheelwright at age 75 ! ...im not doubting these "average" lifespans, I think genetics plays a role and more so medicine, and lastly smokestacks 


oh, Australians are the worst c02 polluters per capita on the planet ..... tsk tsk (but climate change doesnt distinguish who does it!)


----------



## chops_a_must (21 December 2007)

wayneL said:


> But is anyone acting on it? Not from what I see.
> 
> What are you doing 20?




I've already stated that people can choose green power on their energy bills from as little as $10 a bill, and encouraged people to do so. Most people here could easily afford it. If I earn enough money from trading in the near future, I will buy a Prius, as my job forces me to drive whether I like it or not.



--B-- said:


> oh ffs.
> 
> i suppose you hold the same reservations of any pro-GW reports you read? or is it only the ones who cast doubt on the GW debate that are possible open to bias?
> 
> ...




So what was your opinion of the CSIRO scientist/s who got sacked/ forced to resign for questioning the Howard stance on scientific grounds?

Unfortunately for the warming deniers, green groups have quite a good track record when it comes to energy calls. It's pretty rare, but I share something in common with some of those nut job right wingers in the US, including that creep Kudlow. They just call it energy independence...


----------



## wayneL (21 December 2007)

billhill said:


> Wayne i don't understand the criticisms you have towards al gore and other GW activists. You seem to take on a position that everyone who is concerned about GW needs to "walk to the pub". Sure things like this set a good example and hopefully over time culture and behaviour will change. But expecting all individuals to take the resposibilty is unrealistic. People are concerned but many have too much else on their plate to really concentrate on doing much themselves about it. Hence why people would rather allow legislators to do it for them. That way they are doing their bit and don't have to think about it along the way. Why don't people do anything about GW individually, the same reason people don't quit smoking. Its psychological and its ingrained in us through evolution.
> 
> As for al gore you obviously don't have a high oppinion of him but i hope you can agree that he has done more for GW awareness then any other person in the world. His movie probably single handedly made GW an issue in australia and probably led to more agressive environmental policy in this country then otherwise would have been. Thats surely more then just doing his bit regardless of his personal life.




Bill,

People follow examples not instructions. People of substantial means (those with the biggest carbon footprint) all believe something should be done, just not by them. Poorer people see this and think, what's the point?

On this issue, we need leaders of action, not waffle (and largely discredited waffle at that). 

One example is Prince Charles: Admittedly his is hugely larger than the average punter, but he is doing a lot publicly for the environment, people are following to an extent in this country.

If people see the Al Bores actually doing something, personally, they will take it a lot more seriously.

Until then it's all hot air (and money making).


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 December 2007)

wayneL said:


> On this issue, we need leaders of action, not waffle (and largely discredited waffle at that).



well I would have thought that a Nobel Peace Prize was hardly a discredit to Al Gore for instance. 

And btw, I was fair dinkum when I said that voting Howard out was (imo) a massive contribution to countering Global Warming.

Aus is finally "on board" with Kyoto.  
and looks like 80+ % (about 84%) of people have voted here that they agree with that general sentiment - certainly that action was necessary.


----------



## Smurf1976 (21 December 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Unfortunately for the warming deniers, green groups have quite a good track record when it comes to energy calls. It's pretty rare, but I share something in common with some of those nut job right wingers in the US, including that creep Kudlow. They just call it energy independence...



Which green groups are you talking about?

IMO environmentalists have been absolutely right about energy. And conservationists have been absolutely wrong. Unfortunately most Australians don't seem to realise that the two are very, very different in practically every way.


----------



## chops_a_must (21 December 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> Which green groups are you talking about?
> 
> IMO environmentalists have been absolutely right about energy. And conservationists have been absolutely wrong. Unfortunately most Australians don't seem to realise that the two are very, very different in practically every way.




Yeah, I'm talking mainly about the ones I have contact with at the ISTP, which yes, are largely environmentalists rather than conservationists.


----------



## wayneL (21 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> well I would have thought that a Nobel Peace Prize was hardly a discredit to Al Gore for instance.
> 
> And btw, I was fair dinkum when I said that voting Howard out was (imo) a massive contribution to countering Global Warming.
> 
> ...




2020

Awards won't do the job (a load of BS), neither will governments, it's you and me that have to do it.

Governments may have a role incentivizing the unthinking masses, but it is action (and demand for solutions) by individuals that matter.


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 December 2007)

wayneL said:


> 2020
> 
> Awards won't do the job (a load of BS), neither will governments, it's you and me that have to do it.
> 
> Governments may have a role incentivizing the unthinking masses, but it is action (and demand for solutions) by individuals that matter.



Wayne
you say we should demand solutions ...
then you say governments won't fix it ???

I'm confused.  
I can tell you that whether or not you or I or the entire western world walk to the pub is so insignificant it doesn't matter.  

Apart from the fact that I personally believe we will all eventually come round to nuclear (** see note) - I notice that Bush wants US cars to use 40% less fuel in the near / forseeable future - now we're getting somewhere !!

See - one man (or two) going about his business setting a good example ( as you say) - ain't gonna achieve that.  

As I've said before, I don't think you'll find quite so many suburban 4 wheel drive tanks around in the very near future.   Resale value bound to dive.  And filling up the tank would be just a wasteful reminder each few days of the mess we are heading into.     Damned if I'd buy one - even if I could afford it .  

USA has already been there !!  mid 1970s - massive scare - cars suddenly smaller etc - Blind Freddy could see it happening then .  - and now.  How the hell could they have let the (petrol-guzzling) genie out of fhe bottle again .  sheesh.

PS ** OBVIOUSLY the other thing is the opportunity for alternatve energysources.  I'd love it if alternatives like wind power photovoltaic solar cells could do the job.  I used to import solar powered novelties back in the early 80's, but the concept was a bit ahead of its time.

Stern report !! now there's a positive outlook to take on board.   It will cost us more NOT to act than to act.  For mine it's a no brainer.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6096084.stm


> Climate change fight 'can't wait'
> The world cannot afford to wait before tackling climate change, the UK prime minister has warned.
> A report by economist Sir Nicholas Stern suggests that global warming could shrink the global economy by 20%.
> 
> ...


----------



## wayneL (22 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Wayne
> you say we should demand solutions ...
> then you say governments won't fix it ???
> 
> I'm confused.




Gu'mints won't do what costs them government. That's why REAL measures are not being implemented. However if we demand REAL measures. the government will facilitate it




> I can tell you that whether or not you or I or the entire western world walk to the pub is so insignificant it doesn't matter.



Again you disingenuously trivialize the individual's effort. It is not a matter of "walking to the pub", there are dozens of actions an individual can do that collectively make a massive difference.

*****

You know what? F### it! If it's insignificant, I'm going to become a squawker rather than a doer and drive to the bloody pub anyway! Why make my life hard when all the other squawkers are riding around in limousines?

I can afford the 4x4 and the petrol at $300 a barrel, so what the hell? Not even Al Bore gives a damn.

To be frank, its all BS. If the world is doomed, I'm going out in style.


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 December 2007)

wayneL said:


> Gu'mints won't do what costs them government. That's why REAL measures are not being implemented. However if we demand REAL measures. the government will facilitate it
> 
> Again you disingenuously trivialize the individual's effort. It is not a matter of "walking to the pub", there are dozens of actions an individual can do that collectively make a massive difference.
> 
> ...



Kurt Vonnegut - his last book ended in a poem .......
When the last living thing has died on account of us, how poetical it would be if earth could say in a voice floating up, perhaps from the floor of the Grand Canyon, it is done, people did not like it here. 

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/for...gut#post224770

Wayne, I find your attitude is a strange one, no doubt you believe you are somehow being consistent. 

You say I am disingenuous - sure "walking to the pub" is intended to mean things that are relatively trivial compared to a swing away from fossil fuels. 

Incidentally, I believe I told you I own a small 4 cyl car, and live in a fibro house etc . whatever - but don't assume , (when you demand "what are you doing"), that you are doing more than me. 

And incidentally I was also sincere whatever when I said I had just sent a container of manufactured goods to China. Obviously I was referring to the fact that you can claim very little carbon footprint because you aren't involved ( as I understand it) in building things (as I am). And hence in the average day, if you add the energy to machine steel ( as efficiently as I can possible design it to be) then yes, I probably do make a bigger carbon footprint that you in your equine environment  

THen again I probably bring more money into the Aus economy lol - (specially since you now live in UK) 

PS If Al Gore drives a big car - and my guess is it's not as big as claimed but I may stand to be corrected - then he should sell it and get a smaller one.    But I still maintain his principle job has been to educate.   And his message is not somehow "blackballed" because he  has a big car. (allegedly),  imo.  

I would reserve stronger criticism for J Howard, who refused even to meet with Gore. "I don't get my facts from movies" etc tc -  then a month or three later of course , changing his mind.    As Hawke said, Howard should have been paying for road maintenance of the Road to Damascus for the past 12 months.


----------



## wayneL (22 December 2007)

How is it that so-called "educators" are exempt from making an effort? 

I'll tell you one educator who has my utmost respect - David Suzuki. That man walks the walk and has done for as long as I can remember. Where's his peace prize?

Al Bore should have got the prize for slick marketing and politics, not peace.

***

I just bought a Hummer and drove it to the pub. I preached at all in attendance that they should reduce their carbon footprint. It did bun-outs in the car park and drove home... I even took the long way because there was a song on the radio I liked. I've just turned up the heating too.... doesn't matter hey, I'm spreading the message.


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 December 2007)

Global Warming: Point of No Return? 

whether or not the sea actually does rise 6m, even 1 metre will be a disaster. 

lol - maybe add this one for a lighter note .. 

 skating , past the point of no return- 
 these two from Lithuania - with 80% of their energy from nuclear energy, they are entitled to all the ice that's available  
they make 5.4tonnes to Aus's 25tonnes and USA's 24 tonnes per capita.

we need to change the colour of aus to a lesser shade of red ( both in the map and in the fuel source percentage graph)


----------



## spooly74 (22 December 2007)

Dr. Oppenheimer on all aspects of climate change (25mins)


----------



## numbercruncher (22 December 2007)

> Dr. Michael Oppenheimer is a professor of Geosciences and International Affairs at Princeton University, and a leading scholar on global warming. For Dr. Oppenheimer, global warming is a scientific fact that could "remake the face of the Earth." "Scientists agree there's no longer really any argument," says Oppenheimer. "The climate is changing. Human beings are largely responsible, and it's just going to keep getting warmer until we act to remove the pollution."
> 
> From studying climate patterns over time, Dr. Oppenheimer says global warming is not a natural shift. "The last 50 years stick out like a sore thumb," he says. "The temperature's gone up and up and up. It bears the imprint of human activity."
> 
> The 1990s alone were the warmest decade of the last century. Temperatures rose one degree Fahrenheit. That may not sound like a lot, but in scientific terms, that's a big deal. "Over the next 10 to 30 years, Earth could be as much as three degrees warmer than today," says Dr. Oppenheimer. "By 50 years from now, Earth could be five degrees or so warmer than today."




http://www2.oprah.com/tows/slide/200510/20051027/slide_20051027_350_103.jhtml


"Come on in, the waters boiling " anyone remeber that advert ? they should do a Global Warming version


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 December 2007)

spooly74 said:


> Dr. Oppenheimer on all aspects of climate change (25mins)




ripper spooly.

Interesting that most cars put out about their own weight in CO2e per annum.  Also IPCC is totally (majority?) manned by volunteers, etc

I notice that (apart from smaller cars). compact fluorescents get a rap - quarter the power etc - 

there's a little matter of the mercury they leave behind when they are trashed,  but no doubt that too will be addressed one day - special disposal etc


----------



## numbercruncher (22 December 2007)

Huge move by the UK in the War on Warming ..... might set the pace perhaps ?




> Coal-fired power stations, airport expansions and new road schemes could all be put on hold following a decision by Gordon Brown that ministers must in future take account of the true economic cost of climate change damage.
> 
> Ministers have been instructed to factor into their calculations a notional "carbon price" when making all policy and investment decisions covering transport, construction, housing, planning and energy.
> 
> ...




http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/dec/22/climatechange.carbonemissions


----------



## professor_frink (22 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> .............. past the point of no return-
> these two from Lithuania - with 80% of their energy from nuclear energy, they are entitled to all the ice that's available
> they make 5.4tonnes to Aus's 25tonnes and USA's 24 tonnes per capita.
> 
> we need to change the colour of aus to a lesser shade of red ( both in the map and in the fuel source percentage graph)




2020,

what do France and lithuania(and the other major nuclear power generating countries) do with all that waste?


----------



## numbercruncher (22 December 2007)

professor_frink said:


> 2020,
> 
> what do France and lithuania(and the other major nuclear power generating countries) do with all that waste?





I have always reckoned they should send that toxic timebomb waste deep into space, build giant rockets and send it on a one way ticket to pluto, its only natural , living creatures eject their waste , earth is a living creature !




> Since the 1950’s, high-level nuclear waste has been accumulating at nuclear power plants and munitions factories around the world. According to the IAEA, by the year 2000 around 224,000 tonnes of spent fuel had been generated globally from nuclear power plants. Apart from spent fuel sent to reprocessing plants, all of the spent fuel is stored at nuclear power plants waiting for a long-term solution to be found. No country in the world has yet been able to build a long-term high level nuclear waste facility.




http://www.nuclearfreeaustralia.com.au/articles/4-problems-with-the-nuclear-fuel-cycle/v-waste-repositories

Australia is actually considered the most suitable place in the world geologically and assumably politically to store nuclear waste, I wouldnt be too surprised that if at some time in the future we get pushed into becoming just that.


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 December 2007)

thanks nc 
and (imo) it's easier to store nuclear waste than to try to stop the tide coming in twice a day


----------



## numbercruncher (22 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> thanks nc
> and (imo) it's easier to store nuclear waste than to try to stop the tide coming in twice a day




lol yes and sorry Question was directed at you


----------



## professor_frink (22 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> thanks nc
> and (imo) it's easier to store nuclear waste than to try to stop the tide coming in twice a day




That's not really answering the question 2020. But I wasn't really expecting you too, as I already knew the answer, I just wanted to bring it up though
 It seems to be something that is brushed over pretty consistently by the "green" movement. Mainly due to the fact that radioactive waste is anything but green. But then again, so is uranium mining.

Numbercruncher,

thanks for the response.

I really hope you're wrong about us being a radioactive wasteland for "green" countries like Lithuania and France. Though it wouldn't surprise me if you are right. 2020, you are always carrying on about how will our kids and grandkids will remember us in 50 years time- wonder how they'll remember us for creating 2 headed kangaroos under the banner of "looking after the environment"


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 December 2007)

professor_frink said:


> 2020, you are always carrying on about how will our kids and grandkids will remember us in 50 years time- wonder how they'll remember us for creating 2 headed kangaroos under the banner of "looking after the environment"




well- maybe we'll end up with two-headed aussies - and we can put our heads together and work it out 
two heads better than none?

PS prof, I've told you a million  times not to exagerate 
The abs in NT have signed over a property for this use have they not (?) - maybe there was a final geological check (working on memory here)

Important that they don't have any leaching into the groundwater.


Incidentally BHP have had some nasty radioactive spills in SA - and using massive amounts of artesian water (free from SA govt) - and turning some of it into radioactive waste. 

(I haven't read this but it should be accurate - 3 spills at Olympic etc) 
http://www.mapw.org.au/mapw-commentary/submissions/05-05MAPWsubmissionWA-uraniuminquiry.doc

http://www.nukefreeaus.org/campaigns/Uranium_Mining/index.html

then again they've had worse / comparable problems with gold mining (Ok tedi etc) 

http://www.greenleft.org.au/1995/206/11055


> Ok Tedi
> Ok Tedi Mining Limited in PNG (52% owned) is / (was) polluting the Fly River with tailings from the OK Tedi gold mine at the rate of 100,000 tonnes per day.
> In 1984 the mine operators dropped 2400 drums of cyanide into Fly River, of which less than 5% were recovered.




I've quoted this one umpteen times, but I once heard a prof saying "compared to effects of GW, Chernyobel will be a walk in the park"


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 December 2007)

Chernyobel?
Chernobyl whatever  - doh (always been lousy at spelling, specially when I'm rushin  )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster


> The "Chernobyl disaster", or reactor accident at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant is the worst nuclear power plant accident in history and the only instance so far of level 7 on the International Nuclear Event Scale, resulting in a severe nuclear meltdown. On 26 April 1986 at 01:23:40 a.m. reactor number four at the Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant located in the Soviet Union near Pripyat in Ukraine exploded. Further explosions and the resulting fire sent a plume of highly radioactive fallout into the atmosphere and over an extensive geographical area.
> 
> The plume drifted over parts of the western Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, Northern Europe, and eastern North America. Large areas in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia were badly contaminated, resulting in the evacuation and resettlement of over 336,000 people. According to official post-Soviet data,[1] about 60% of the radioactive fallout landed in Belarus.  ...  Soviets forced to be less secretive etc . safer...




Surely we'd be wiser after that anyway!
but as I mention , GW is worse


----------



## Julia (22 December 2007)

wayneL said:


> *****
> 
> You know what? F### it! If it's insignificant, I'm going to become a squawker rather than a doer and drive to the bloody pub anyway! Why make my life hard when all the other squawkers are riding around in limousines?
> 
> ...



Wayne, I believe your facetious comment above in actual fact represents the philosophy of much of the population.
And then there's another large group of people, myself included, who just don't know what to believe.  I lack the scientific background to be able to properly evaluate all the screeds of urgings by both sides, and find that my innate suspicion of all things hysterical (which is what a lot of it comes across as to me) just turns me off.

Like many other things, e.g. fluoride, I am reminded of how powerless I am as an individual to have any say anyway, despite what I might believe.
So I just sigh and hope someone with wisdom sorts it all out.

It's a bit like the AA mantra about changing the things you can, accepting the things you can't, and having the wisdom to know the difference.

In the meantime, I hardly use my car, rarely fly, and have a green garden.

Keep walking to the pub.  If nothing else, it's good for your health!


----------



## wayneL (23 December 2007)

Julia,

It was was only partly facetious. If there's anything I've learned in the last few years is this:

* Trying to do the right thing doesn't earn you any respect, and in fact engenders contempt, as detailed before and as evident in this thread.

* Shouting about AGW absolves you of any responsibility to actually do anything.

* Squawk about it enough (while actually doing nothing) and you might get great wads of cash thrown at you, a vast sycophantic following... and perhaps a coveted prize or two.

* If AGW is real (and I'm still doubtful of the A part), the measures as proposed by the powers that be are hopelessly inadequate anyway and won't make a jot of difference (and perhaps a lot worse).

I'll continue what I do, but it won't be for the benefit of the 90% of t0ssers, egomaniacal hypocrites, preachers and squawkers on this planet, but just because it's "right".

I scarcely ever go to the pub, but I'll be walking when I do.


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 December 2007)

Wayne, even the Royals have their little hypocritical ways...   (assuming Prince Charles will one day get to overrule mummy on how much cruising the QE2 does)



wayneL said:


> On this issue, we need leaders of action, not waffle (and largely discredited waffle at that).
> 
> One example is Prince Charles: Admittedly his is hugely larger than the average punter, but he is doing a lot publicly for the environment, people are following to an extent in this country..




This as posted by 123 on another thread 



123enen said:


> The vessel uses 18 tonnes of a fuel an hour, or 433 tonnes per day, with one gallon of fuel moving the ship 49ft 6ins.
> 
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/319027.stm
> 
> As Maxwell Smart would say "Missed it by that much"




Another way to cut down GW, how about just asking the US to fly 10% fewer sorties bombing innocents 2/3 rds of the time!   Maybe just go to war a little less often.  ( could have skipped Iraq anyway - that would account for about 3000 trillion walks to the pub - and some)


----------



## wayneL (23 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Wayne, even the Royals have their little hypocritical ways...   (assuming Prince Charles will one day get to overrule mummy on how much cruising the QE2 does)



But he's a messenger, so doesn't have to do anything.


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 December 2007)

Here's another way to think of it.
Compare him with Bush. 



> You cannot see this film and not think of George W. Bush, the man who beat Gore in 2000. The contrast is stark. Gore -- more at ease in the lecture hall than he ever was on the stump -- summons science to tell a harrowing story and offers science as the antidote. No feat of imagination could have Bush do something similar -- even the sentences are beyond him.
> 
> But it is the thought that matters -- the application of intellect to an intellectual problem. Bush has been studiously anti-science, a man of applied ignorance who has undernourished his mind with the empty calories of comfy dogma. For instance, his insistence on abstinence as the preferred method of birth control would be laughable were it not so reckless.
> 
> It is similar to Bush's initial approach to global warming and his rejection of the Kyoto Protocol -- ideology trumping science. *It may be that Gore will do more good for his country and the world with this movie than Bush ever did by beating him in 2000*.




it is from this article...  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/17/AR2006041701259.html
which starts with .... the blatantly hackneyed rhyme of "gore" and "bore" - must have been pointed out a few times over the years that one...  


> A Campaign Gore Can't Lose
> By Richard Cohen
> Tuesday, April 18, 2006; Page A19
> 
> ...




and that article concludes (warts and all here - so he's a know all ! - but we cannot afford for him to lose again ....


> In the meantime, he is a man on a mission. Wherever he goes -- and he travels incessantly -- he finds time and an audience to deliver his (free) lecture on global warming. It and the film leave no doubt of the peril we face, nor do they leave any doubt that Gore, at last, is a man at home in his role. He is master teacher, pedagogue, know-it-all, smarter than most of us, better informed and, having tried and failed to gain the presidency, he has raised his sights to save the world.* We simply cannot afford for Al Gore to lose again*.


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 December 2007)

wayneL said:


> But he's a messenger, so doesn't have to do anything.



Sure he has to do something.



> little-known fact: Since his defeat by George W. Bush in 2000, Gore has traveled the globe with his bar graphs, staging event after event for small, invited audiences. Free of charge.



Most criticism he seems to get is that he flies between (free) lectures...
I mean (hellooo as Johnny Howard would say) - a lot of people fly these days..  and he has a message to spread - ...

As for him being a messanger - sure - and a bludy good one.  in fact extraordinary.   Leaving aside the science if you wish - but he gets a standing ovation every now and again .. (like at the launch of An Inconvenient Truth at Sundance Festival, potentially one of the most boring movie topics that could have been selected )...

This again from the washington post at the time (almost 2 years ago now) 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/25/AR2006012502230.html


> Al Gore, Sundance's Leading Man
> 'An Inconvenient Truth' Documents His Efforts To Raise Alarm on Effects of Global Warming
> By William Booth
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> ...


----------



## wayneL (23 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Most criticism he seems to get is that he flies between (free) lectures...
> I mean (hellooo as Johnny Howard would say) - a lot of people fly these days..  and he has a message to spread - ...



Oh please! It's his whole lifestyle, including the houses... schlepps his own bags? dittums.

Propaganda


> As for him being a messanger - sure - and a bludy good one.



I dispute that. There has been precisely nil net effect from the film, save a preponderance of no-action squawkers.


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 December 2007)

well, if you claim he's a lousy communicator 
then 
I would say that you can't see the wood for the trees
but there won't be many of them left soon either which way, 
so I guess that quote will become an anachronism as well. 

Wayne 
 question 
Is Aus signing up for Kyoto (starting to side with the europeans and putting pressure on the yanks to act) a good thing in your opinion?

You seem to be transfixed on whether one man lives in a big house or not !!


----------



## professor_frink (23 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> well- maybe we'll end up with two-headed aussies - and we can put our heads together and work it out
> two heads better than none?
> 
> PS prof, I've told you a million  times not to exagerate
> ...




Yep. Quite important. And to this date, is unsolved. Finding somewhere that's stable enough geologically is the other big thing. But who really knows how much any area selected is going to move over the next 1000 years or so. What's a stable area today may not be in 500 years time.

Funnily enough, the link below mentions numbercruncher's idea of shooting it deep into space- that's how hard this stuff is to deal with. Sorry if I'm continuing to exaggerate in your eyes 2020, but IMO this is a problem that really needs to be dealt with before we run around screaming that we are killing the planet, and have to save 1/3 off our power generation emissions by building thousands of reactors that will possibly solve the short term solution, but create another problem that will still be with us 300+ generations from now.

http://library.thinkquest.org/17940/texts/nuclear_waste_storage/nuclear_waste_storage.html



Considering how dirty U mining is, and the overall net benefit of the entire process(mining through to the actual generation of electricity), it seems like a pretty bad deal for us as a country to be participating in things like Kyoto, when it puts us at a bit of a disadvantage. Most of the reactors in Europe were built before the world started caring about GW and the possible effects that man was having on the environment, so they have escaped on the emissions created from that part of  the process- they can then let us pollute the planet via the emissions involved in trying to mine a substance that is only found in small amounts in any one area, then they can get the end benefit of the process, and it would appear that the preferred option for dealing with the long term problem of the waste is to give it back to us to deal with. So we do all of the polluting, countries like Lithuania get the benefit, and then we may have to deal with the problems they created. Sounds like a great way to go.




2020hindsight said:


> I've quoted this one umpteen times, but I once heard a prof saying "compared to effects of GW, Chernyobel will be a walk in the park"




hmmmm. 

Option1- large scale renewables. An area can recover from a dam being built. Wind farms can be pulled down if required. 

Option2-  Create toxic waste that can kill and displace hundreds of thousands of people and will pollute the planet for thousands of years to reduce emissions by 1/3, when we don't even have enough of the stuff available to power the planet for any considerable length of time(and thank god for that too).

I know which direction I'd be going here.

Sorry 2020 if you feel I'm still exaggerating, but I don't think nuclear is particularly clean, or green, and I really hope that Kyoto, or any other agreement that comes after it doesn't force govt's into looking for short term solutions that just replace the current problem with another one.


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 December 2007)

professor_frink said:


> Yep. Quite important. And to this date, is unsolved. Finding somewhere that's stable enough geologically is the other big thing. But who really knows how much any area selected is going to move over the next 1000 years or so. What's a stable area today may not be in 500 years time.
> 
> Funnily enough, the link below mentions numbercruncher's idea of shooting it deep into space- that's how hard this stuff is to deal with. Sorry if I'm continuing to exaggerate in your eyes 2020, but IMO this is a problem that really needs to be dealt with before we run around screaming that we are killing the planet, and have to save 1/3 off our power generation emissions by building thousands of reactors that will possibly solve the short term solution, but create another problem that will still be with us 300+ generations from now.
> 
> ...



lol
when I said you were exaggerating , I used the word "exagerating" which is a lesser form thereof 

I was referring to your two headed kangaroos of course. 

And we already have those radioactive spills out there.  So whether or not we go on to use the U ourselves, we are going to have to be aware of radioactivity , conceded. 

I'm planning to do some more research on the resources of U in the world, plus coal, plus etc - see just how long we've got  (probably wait for Smurf's assistance lol), 

Mind you, damns make a lot of methane  - 
when it comes to hydro, maybe it's a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't (??)

I'll think about your post some more prof.  But you are agreeing I think that we are already "up to our necks in nuclear industry" are  you not?


----------



## wayneL (23 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> well, if you claim he's a lousy communicator
> then
> I would say that you can't see the wood for the trees
> but there won't be many of them left soon either which way,



As last a real issue - deforrestation, but I digress. 

Good communicator, wrong message. 



> Wayne
> question
> Is Aus signing up for Kyoto (starting to side with the europeans and putting pressure on the yanks to act) a good thing in your opinion?




Kyoto in its current form is BS, pure subterfuge. Won't do a thing. 



> You seem to be transfixed on whether one man lives in a big house or not !!



No, you miss the point altogether. I'm transfixed on leadership and the number of individuals who live in a big house or not.

Less squawking, more action.


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 December 2007)

prof - 
further to my previous part response 
Other things to consider -  a lot of "dirty" energy is required to make (the first set of) wind turbines - and nuclear stations  - "breakeven" happens many years down the track . 


since you mention stable areas for storage - Aus is a very stable tectonic plate (eg for storage of waste).   Having said that , Newcastle went from lowest risk zone to highest in one day , just by having one decent EQ (but it has other problems, like deep soft geology which amplifies some frequencies which affect buildings of certain height etc ) . 

Obviously you'd store the stuff with proper protection - including taking into account EQ. 
- likewise nuclear stations should have concrete domes to protect against aircraft crashing into them.

Some in the USA were shown to be missing a lot of the reinforcement that should have gone into the concrete - and the construction inspectors living in big houses ( even bigger than Al Gore's but made by alternative sources  )

prof - we are gonna lose the barrier reef in our (or our kid's) lifetime !! 
Perhaps Wayne is right - why bother trying.

PS looking at that map - maybe Lithuania is just as stable as us lol


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 December 2007)

_It may be that Gore will do more good for his country and the world with this movie than Bush ever did by beating him in 2000

It may be that Gore will do more good for his country and the world with this movie than Bush ever did by beating him in 2000

It may be that Gore will do more good for his country and the world with this movie than Bush ever did by beating him in 2000_

..........
sorry, just that I've been writing this on the wall a few hundred times
Probably the best thing Bush ever did for the planet was to swindle those Florida voters back in 2000


----------



## wayneL (23 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> _It may be that Gore will do more good for his country and the world with this movie than Bush ever did by beating him in 2000
> 
> It may be that Gore will do more good for his country and the world with this movie than Bush ever did by beating him in 2000
> 
> ...



Oh Lord, where's my chunder bucket? Your in love with Al Bore m8.

Big Al has done nothing substantive for the planet at all. A movie does nothing.


----------



## professor_frink (23 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> prof -
> further to my previous part response
> Other things to consider -  a lot of "dirty" energy is required to make (the first set of) wind turbines - and nuclear stations  - "breakeven" happens many years down the track .
> 
> ...




I'm not concerned about where it should be stored- I don't think we should create it in the first place. In regards to Newcastle being a suitable storage area before the quake- being a novocastrian, if that little quake means I won't ever have to live near radioactive waste, then I'll be a happy man.

Yes, dirty energy is required to make turbines. No radioactive waste afterwards though. 

I don't think Wayne is saying don't bother trying. Perhaps you should go back and read his posts again. He's advocating action on an individual level. I agree with that. If enough people start consuming less, then the battle will be quite a bit easier on a global scale. We could get the same end benefit of going nuclear by simply using less electricity, and won't have the problem of dealing with the waste. Combine that with a move towards renewables and we can make a big difference. Whether that saves the GBR I don't know. But if individuals continue to consume more and more, then the world will be in trouble. Why you have decided to disagree with people wanting to take action on an individual level is beyond me

I quite like how you end you posts with those little emotive statements. You make it look like I don't care what happens to the GBR. This has been a typical response from you in this thread when someone doesn't agree 100% on AGW. I'm sure you have your reasons for doing so, but IMO doesn't really help your case that much. Does make me look bad though! But oh well. I'll just have to continue to ride my pushbike to the pub(walking takes too long for me......and a  man's not a camel:drink instead of trying to change the entire world at once.


----------



## numbercruncher (23 December 2007)

We need bubblevision to embrace and promote action to get somewhere, to popularise personal action ......

We need all those charactors (love them or loath them) of modern pop culture , reaching out and spreading the message to the sheeples ! 

If the masses see Paris Hilton driving a Prius etc itll shift momentum imho!

Popularising personal action combined with Government legislation has surely got to be the way to go, and asap, before the tide comes in


----------



## wayneL (23 December 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> We need bubblevision to embrace and promote action to get somewhere, to popularise personal action ......
> 
> We need all those charactors (love them or loath them) of modern pop culture , reaching out and spreading the message to the sheeples !
> 
> ...



Exactly.

Seems to be Buckley's chance of that at the moment though.


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 December 2007)

professor_frink said:


> 1. I'm not concerned about where it should be stored- I don't think we should create it in the first place. In regards to Newcastle being a suitable storage area before the quake- being a novocastrian, if that little quake means I won't ever have to live near radioactive waste, then I'll be a happy man.
> 
> 2. Yes, dirty energy is required to make turbines. No radioactive waste afterwards though.
> 
> ...




ok - lol I seem to have attracted the ire of multiple mods here, so may be pushing my luck to comment 
but buga it, my god (mother nature) wants me to have a go, so here goes....

1. well Newcastle will presumably win from investment in clean coal technology ( there I remain to be convinced of its effectiveness, but I hope I'm wrong) - I also do work with the coalfields in the Hunter, albeit peripheral. 

2. and no co2 either way , wind or nuclear 

3. If you're saying Wayne's comment was a hypothetical, then so was mine I guess:- 
Wayne :-  If the world is doomed, I'm going out in style
Julia :- I believe your facetious comment above in actual fact represents .. much of the population.
Wayne:- It was only partly facetious.
2020:- perhaps Wayne is right. why bother trying 
i.e. I'm agreeing with his hypothetical 

Of course I believe in action on an individual level.  I agree entirely with Wayne and you here

Where I seem to disagree is that I think such efforts should *include* (but obviously not limited to) writing about it  on public forums.

- and showing public support for any and all positives including Kyoto, however small a step they may be.  

"spruking / squawking" whatever seems to cause some around here concern. 
(I assume squaw-king is an american indian term ?) 

And Bali is a small step I concede - As I mentioned on the poetry thread, Bali is just  "the first Penny in the wishing well".  but better than nothing, and a quantum leap from JHoward's attitude. 

4. I hope you are right - that a combination of "demand management" and  renewables can do it alone without nuclear.  Just that I suspect that one day (probably not in my lifetime) nuclear will be a no-choice option.

5. agreed - we need individuals to use less.   We also need fewer individuals.  Meanwhile we continue to have "one for him, one for her, and one for the country"  -  ---- while China tries to restrain people to just having one (end of story).  Lets talk about talk vs action .  

6. I don't disagree with people wanting to take action on an individual level.  I disagree with them finding fault with people talking about the criticality, the urgency, and )finding fault with) the people who are bringing this to our attention, including Al Gore with all his minor "inconsistencies" . 

7. emotive statements.  ok - that we are gonna lose the barrier reef.  m8 , I was being generous when I said it might be in our children's time.  It will probably happen in ours.  

IF it doesn't (and I doubt that we can save it), then Al Gore and other squawkers will have achieved a miracle. Agreed? - I mean would anything have happened if not for his movie?  

Prof Oppenheimer seems to think that the IPCC could not have done it without Al Gore's active assistance ?


----------



## wayneL (23 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> ok - lol I seem to have attracted the ire of multiple mods here, so may be pushing my luck to comment
> but buga it, my god (mother nature) wants me to have a go, so here goes....



Just a point, this discussion has nothing to do with moderation. I, and I'm 100% sure Professor Frink, are discussing this purely in the capacity of a normal contributer to the forum.

We are only concerned as Mods if the Code of Conduct is breeched.


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 December 2007)

Wayne
Suppose a man with a big house on the hill tells you that 

a) people in coastal shacks (all over the world) are in peril, and
b) other critters, forests, oceans etc are in peril, and
c) that for every tonne of CO2 he generates in telling people this, he achieves two tonne of reduction 

do you ignore him on a) and b) because you doubt c).

PS I'm not saying he's perfect, just that he echieves a nett benefit.


----------



## wayneL (23 December 2007)

As another general principle, one of the worst things for any sort of marketing (and lets face it GW is being marketed) is overkill.

Pound that message too hard and folks just turn off. I think there is a real danger of that already occurring (in true American fashion). Most people I speak to who accept GW as fact, accept it as fait accompli.

They've been told we're doomed so effectively, that it's "OK, we're screwed, so lets just enjoy life as best we can. we'll be dead anyway."


----------



## noirua (23 December 2007)

World expansion is a big problem and many a green activist fights against a coal mine being given the go-ahead without facing the poor growth and problems of the alternative fuels.

World growth in 2008 should be around 4.75%, IMF forecasts (2006-5.4%, 2007-5.2%), less in the West, but more in Asia and the Far east making the balance.
So, alternative green fuels need to grow in quantity, in 2008, by nearly 100% just to keep up with 2007.

2020 mentions UCC or anthracite, but progress on these is painfully slow, even though 20 cents on every tonne of coal produced in Australia goes in advancing production and technology. Vietnam seems to be a leading light in wanting anthracite supplies in the future.

Also don't think that all forms of so called green products are as green as many may like you to believe.


----------



## numbercruncher (23 December 2007)

View attachment frosty-lblue.bmp



My Daughter got me this T for Chrissy ..... Im going to become a walking GW / CC billboard  wonder if I could get Carbon Credits in the new economy for being a Climate Change billboard ?


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 December 2007)

2020 said:
			
		

> We also need fewer individuals.  Meanwhile we continue to have "one for him, one for her, and one for the country"  -  ---- while China tries to restrain people to just having one (end of story).  Lets talk about talk vs action .



Let's take a new spin on this one as well...
suppose we as Aussies insist that we need more Aussies for national defense or whatever - like, noway !! are we gonna limit our family size....

then, considering China has voluntarily deduced its population by regulation ( unpopular of course !! - amongst the Chinese populace)  by more than 220 million or about the population of USA

then wouldn't you think, if we insisted on that situation being "fair"

then it would be fair for us to do our bit for Kyoto etc (and any and all other measures including personal reduction in energy usage).  


PS  Here I'll throw in one of those PS's - trust you understand no malice here prof...
Maybe the bedrooms of the second and third kids in an Aussie house should not have lights fitted?

I mean it wouldn't affect the third world either way, they have several familes sharing one bulb 


PS I met a Chinese engineer who was working in Fiji - a young bloke posted there for 3 years.   Whilst there his wife had their child ( a little girl), and he didn't see the child till he got home three years later.   He missed her first giggles, her first words, her first steps, so many magic moments - 

and he/they aren't allowed to have another  

These people are putting in seriously hard yards, while we argue about our footy etc .


----------



## wayneL (23 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Wayne
> Suppose a man with a big house on the hill tells you that
> 
> a) people in coastal shacks (all over the world) are in peril, and
> ...



You see Al Bore is a egomaniacal t0sser with a hidden agenda, I wouldn't listen to him about anything.

I would listen to the likes of David Suzuki however, who rides pushbikes and takes his own cup to the baseball game rather than using a styrofoam cup for his coffee. (and has done for at least 10 years I know about)


----------



## numbercruncher (23 December 2007)

wayneL said:


> They've been told we're doomed so effectively, that it's "OK, we're screwed, so lets just enjoy life as best we can. we'll be dead anyway."




Yes precisely, and im surprised at the sheer number of " Oh well I wont be here " crowd as well ....

Marketing the cause probably needs to be two tiered in that it needs to also address peoples selfishness with regards to next generations.

We probaly need to be pushing that we CAN and WILL win , with "your" help .... two of humans strongest natural mechanisms are Fight and Flight - we need to energise the Fight ! Like you said if the peoples are convinced by bubblevision that we are doomed they will choose Flight on GW and just carry on their merry little old habits way ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 December 2007)

wayneL said:


> I would listen to the likes of David Suzuki however, who rides pushbikes and takes his own cup to the baseball game rather than using a styrofoam cup for his coffee. (and has done for at least 10 years I know about)



wayne, hey, lol - think you're the only fan of Suzuki?

so where Suzuki and Gore overlap, you would accept the verdict?

(PS only difference possibly - pure conjecture ok - Suzuki gets paid, Gore doesn't)

PS I'm off to the beach - what a day !!!   how can they say there's no Mother Nature! lol


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 December 2007)

If we go ahead with Kyoto then individual actions become irrelevant.

If I choose to buy 1000 tonnes of coal and set fire to it then it will make NO difference whatsoever in a scenario where total emissions are capped under an international agreement. All it will do is slightly raise the price of carbon and result in someone else using 1000 tonnes less coal than they otherwise would have. That's how Kyoto in a market economy works.

All this stuff about banning light bulbs etc is outright nonsense now that we have ratified Kyoto. It is, at best, a cheap means of compliance.

But since when was it the role of government to decide what represents value in a competitive market? Banning bulbs is really no different to a government decree that we all rush out and buy shares in XYZ, buy a certain brand of washing detergent and wear a specified brand of shoes because, in the government's opinion, they represent good value. Banning bulbs won't save CO2 in a Kyoto world - it's a financial issue not an environmental one.

Same with solar hot water etc. If I don't get the solar or heat pump hot water service and use electric instead then, with total emissions capped, someone else finds the slightly increased price of carbon a sufficient incentive and cuts emissions instead of me doing it. And vice versa.

All government needs to do is decide the amount of CO2 etc to be emitted and then stand aside. The market will do the rest far better than any politician who doesn't comprehend the practical aspects of different technologies. 

We need to "do our part" with oil that's for sure. But the CO2 issue has been taken out of the public's hands by Kyoto. Trouble is, the message being sent out is the opposite - do your part with CO2 but don't worry about oil. 

Only two weeks ago I was accused of lying over the simple point that a hot water cylinder stores hot water and doesn't go cold the moment the power is turned off. I was trying to explain why off-peak power made more sense than continuous rate but it was a lost cause - at least until they get a power bill or two. Just one example of how the general public really hasn't got a clue about even the simplest energy technology - and this was a reasonably well educated person.


----------



## professor_frink (23 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> lol
> when I said you were exaggerating , I used the word "exagerating" which is a lesser form thereof
> 
> I was referring to your two headed kangaroos of course.
> ...




Sorry 2020,

I somehow missed this one in the onslaught of posts this morning

I'm agreeing about us already being "up to our necks in the nuclear industry" to a point. It's already here, not much can be done about that, but until we can come up with a way to dispose of the waste it generates, IMO we shouldn't be carrying on like it's the holy grail of electricity generation, because it ain't

Dams do make methane, but how much exactly?(I don't have an exact figure). Either way, using a lot more hydro to me is more beneficial compared with nuclear- dams can be knocked down if required(or if something better comes along) in the future, and the area will recover a hell of  a lot quicker than it will take for an area to recover from radioactive waste spilling out into the environment when we try and store it.



2020hindsight said:


> ok - lol I seem to have attracted the ire of multiple mods here, so may be pushing my luck to comment
> but buga it, my god (mother nature) wants me to have a go, so here goes....
> 
> 1. well Newcastle will presumably win from investment in clean coal technology ( there I remain to be convinced of its effectiveness, but I hope I'm wrong) - I also do work with the coalfields in the Hunter, albeit peripheral.
> ...




Don't worry- I'm not participating in this discussion as a mod. If Al Gore decided to list himself on the ASX, you would be banned pretty quickly for your shameless ramping

1. I don't really buy the idea of clean coal(though don't know too much about it at this stage)

2. A standard argument from the nuclear lobby. And a pretty weak one too. If it were that simple, then we would have made the switch to nuclear a long time ago.

3. I'm not saying Wayne's comments were hypothetical at all. I do think you should go back and read his posts in this thread again.

4. I hope I am too. We aren't going to solve anything without reducing consumption, regardless of where the electricity comes from. To be honest, I can't see that happening anytime soon though. I would love to be wrong though.

5. Good.

6&7. Interesting comments. If things are that critical, then you would hope that Al would be doing a bit more than just talk about it. I in no way agree that Al Gore will have achieved a miracle if the GBR doesn't become destroyed when you say it might. Not sure how old you are, but GW is hardly a new topic that we are all aware of because of an inconvenient truth. This is something that has been talked about for years- The IPCC has been around for what, nearly 2 decades now? It's something that has been mentioned throughout my short life, so how is Al Gore making a movie 2 decades after the IPCC being formed responsible for that much?

Whilst it goes without saying that he has put a lot of work into promoting awareness of the issue, I think most people would have been well aware of what was going on well before he made that movie. Does that mean he shouldn't have made it? No, I don't think he has hurt the cause by doing what he's done. I do however, think he could be setting a better example, by practicing more of what he preaches. But that is probably worthy of an entire topic on it's own.

If the state of the GBR is that bad that it could be gone within our lifetime, then it may be time to face facts and go and see whilst you still can, because we won't be able to do enough to save it now when we are talking about reducing emissions over the next 40 years, not 5


----------



## billhill (23 December 2007)

wayneL said:
			
		

> You see Al Bore is a egomaniacal t0sser with a hidden agenda, I wouldn't listen to him about anything.




Care to enlighten us to this hidden agenda please?



			
				wayneL said:
			
		

> I would listen to the likes of David Suzuki however, who rides pushbikes and takes his own cup to the baseball game rather than using a styrofoam cup for his coffee. (and has done for at least 10 years I know about)




Full respect to him he is a noble and great man. However would you agree he's been unable to cut through to the mainstream anywhere near as effectively as Al Gore.



			
				wayneL said:
			
		

> A movie does nothing.




Bit of a throw away statement wayne. For one example after his movie was released in WA households on renewable energy surged. Do you consider that as nothing. I've been concerned about the prospect of GW since i first heard about it in the mid 90s and have been following its development ever since. I can honestly say that the release of an inconvenient truth single handedly put the issue into the mainstream. This problem will not be fixed until it becomes a concern of the masses, something i believe al gore has had more contribution in then anyone else.


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 December 2007)

professor_frink said:


> A. Dams do make methane, but how much exactly?(I don't have an exact figure).
> 
> B.  Either way, using a lot more hydro to me is more beneficial compared with nuclear- dams can be knocked down if required(or if something better comes along) in the future, and the area will recover a hell of  a lot quicker than it will take for an area to recover from radioactive waste spilling out into the environment when we try and store it.
> 
> ...




ok ok, lol - first thing I want to say is that I think we are all having an Irish argument here  - I'll post a poem (after I've converted it from a draft I just whipped up at the beach) 

A. Dams make methane from rotting vegetation - I'm also not sure how much - obviously it depends how well they clean out the existing growth.  Similarly I know of a local rubbish dump, and the methane that came out of that - sheesh - they had a couple of flares rising 10 foot in the air each - and that went on for about 10 years.  I think even Smurf (if I can take his name in vane/vein/vain) has had to admit that his precious dams have just a hint of down side  

B.  well, lol - I'd say that's paranoia, lopsided bias - probably on both our parts - but we may have to agree to disagree.

C.  "you would be banned pretty quickly for your shameless ramping".  Hell I'm only sorry so much of the discussion has been about attacking the man (one man at that) and not concentrating on the message.   Gore's house, car etc is absolutely IRRELEVANT as far as I am concerned.  (apart from the fact that I suspect Wayne also ramps on this one - i.e. when he implies that Gore says " waste less", and then happily goes home and "wastes to his heart's content" ) 

I wish we'd been calling it the David Suzuki principle all along - except that , as billhill says, it would still be a lame duck on the bookshelves.  It would never have taken off.    

Here's a really wild theory, but I even suspect that part of Gore's popularity here (and we are talking USA, right?) is a feeling amongst the people that he was screwed in 2000, and maybe give him a chance...

1. clean coal - collect all that carbon in the stacks, and stuff it into underground seams.  - yeah right.   

here's another light-hearted comment - fair warning!! - the Hunter would be responsible for most of NSW's pollution, agreed .  (we get our coal there after all - and of course we all share the power so generated).  I recall a comedy show, for red wines - "this little number is a provative blend of delicate reds, with a hint of berry, and an aftertaste to die for"...

"meanwhile this glass from the Hunter "...   sips, looks in the mirror ....  "leaves a black smudge on your top lip ". 

2. "A standard argument from the nuclear lobby. And a pretty weak one too."
well I used to back the nuclear argument back in the 70's.  In fact we learnt about it at uni - in the early days of using the "nuclear ploughshare" rather than the "atomic sword".  

Another "aside"  - back then (in the 60's) we were told (at uni) of proposals on the books to make instant underground vitreous-lined flasks in central aus.   - just drill a hole and let off a nuclear bomb - but make sure it didn't break the surface - the resultant flask would be waterproof, and would hold water for years rather than days (evaporation etc etc ) - radiation was usually ok after 5 or 10 years whatever - trivial in the timeframe we need to plan for. 

Another proposal was to make harbours in the Pilbara (when Port Hedland was getting started etc) - one bomb - done!! - never happened of course  - bit left-field that one lol.  



> "If it were that simple, then we would have made the switch to nuclear a long time ago."



- mmm no comment  other than Johnny Howard was the first to even hint that nuclear would be seriously looked at.  - and the greens and Labor attacked him mercilessly on that (when in my books they are being hypocritical) - *too much emotion about disposing of waste - not enough about rising sea levels and other climate change*,  imo. 

3. Wayne has clarified this. 
4. good
5. good.

6&7. In that IPCC video ( have you watched it?) - Oppenheimer himself says that most in IPCC give Al gore massive credit for getting the message out.    Apart from that I really don't want to spent more time discussing the man - let's get back to the message.  

.........


> "If the state of the GBR is that bad that it could be gone within our lifetime, then it may be time to face facts and go and see whilst you still can,"




ok - I'm gonna accuse you of being either
a) childless, or
b) selfish, or 
c) unconcerned whether "life" goes on on this planet after say 2100 lol. (and please don;t argue that the cockroackes or the dung beetles might survive etc).  *"Life handed down" should mean "life as handed to us" should it not *!



> "because we won't be able to do enough to save it now when we are talking about reducing emissions over the next 40 years, not 5




spot on - as I posted elsewhere, (ex IPCC source) most probably,  if we stopped making ALL co2 NOW - the best prediction is that world would still be warming in the year 2100.  Question is does it to get to 5 degree or 10 or 15 etc degrees hotter etc.


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> I used to back the nuclear argument back in the 70's.  ...  "nuclear ploughshare"   vs  "atomic sword".



Just to amplify / clarify ... (this is a copy from "Global Cooling" thread)

Personally I've been through 3 phases on this nuclear question - 
a) in favour in the old days when global warming was a new topic, 
b) against after Chernobyl when it became obvious that humans are possibly too stupid to "go there", and now 
c) in favour again, because the prospects for the world, and the coasts, and the forests are exponentially going downhill. 

PS "nuclear ploughshare"   vs  "atomic sword". - are quotes from recent TIME magazine on this.

PS Just want to say thanks to Wayne for starting so many threads on this topic lol - great that it has brought in so much discussion  etc.  "Global Cooling" . "We are Toast" , "Great Global Warming Swindle" etc .  
One should write a book based on the responses lol.


----------



## Wysiwyg (23 December 2007)

I reckon this green trend will blow over and everyone will return to their usual consumerist ways.Anyway while it`s in the spotlight Garp. found this site with some helpful ideas to reduce waste but the site still appeals to cosumerism (ism`s are back in style) 


http://www.evo.com/


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 December 2007)

o well - seems that David Suzuki is another liar .  
rats.  (FWIW this bloke is a FWIT)


> GLOBAL WARMING  AND DAVID SUZUKI'S LIES
> by David MacRae
> 
> When I was growing up in the 60s and 70s, one of the highlights of my TV-viewing week was David Suzuki's excellent The Nature of Things. Each week I looked forward to yet another lucid insight into the workings of technology and the natural world. As a consequence of that long-running series, Suzuki is by far the best-known scientist in Canada. In fact, he has a considerable reputation worldwide.
> ...



gee sounds like Gore at this stage.... and gets the same response ....


> All four of these claims are false. Let's take them in turn:
> Claim: The earth is warming.
> Fact: The global temperature reached its modern peak about 1940 and declined somewhat in the following decade. It has not changed significantly in the last fifty years although there has been considerable variation from year to year, largely due to the El Niño phenomenon.
> 
> ...




Then he (also ) gets personal..


> Instead I want to concentrate on Suzuki part in this scam.
> 
> *Since his thesis contradicts known facts in every way, he necessarily resorts to lies, blustering and misdirection in order to support his position. This is typical of any fanatic*.
> 
> ...




more follows ( later) 

etc etc this is dated october 2000.  
Sorry bud, but you and your comments are past their "use-by" date.


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 December 2007)

GLOBAL WARMING  AND DAVID SUZUKI'S LIES   ..........by David MacRae
continues ... (sorry i forgot to post link) 
http://www.quebecoislibre.org/001014-11.htm



> Dick Kahle: Half of the warming of this century, about 0.4 C, occurred prior to 1940 before most of the big increase in CO2. The 0.4 C warming left, which might be caused partially by man, is much less than the 0.8 C that the latest models predict, which include aerosols. Why the difference?
> 
> David Suzuki: Historically greenhouse gas emissions have been on the increase since the Industrial Revolution. I believe that the 0.8 includes the earlier 0.4. More importantly future warming is likely to be based on the emissions which are taking place now and those from the past two decades, when emissions soared.
> 
> ...



Seriously - lol - (what about the post-1940's increase in temp !) 

All I can think of is Kipling's IF, 

"If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken, 
 twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools..."


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 December 2007)

btw, concerning those last mentioned graphs - 
you might be able to see an 11 year cycle in the solar activity - 
 and guess who discovered them 
this bloke (Galileo in the early 1600s):-
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/galileo/lrk_lesson.html

Next look at the graph below...
you'll see that we are currently near the bottom of a trough of solar activity.- oops low was this year - we are about to head upwards 

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


> A minimum in the eleven-year sunspot cycle took place in 2007 [1] and the start of Cycle 24 is expected in 2008.




next read about predictions for the next couple of years 
http://www.physorg.com/news86010302.html


> Evidence is mounting: the next solar cycle is going to be a big one. Solar cycle 24, due to peak in *2010 or 2011 "looks like its going to be one of the most intense cycles since record-keeping began almost 400 years ago*," says solar physicist David Hathaway of the Marshall Space Flight Center. He and colleague Robert Wilson presented this conclusion last week at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco.
> Their forecast is based on historical records of geomagnetic storms.




Now based on that , only a fool would bet against it getting cooler in the near future (consistent trend-sustained etc )


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 December 2007)

We've all got our heroes 
I guess Canada has Suzuki
Australia has Ian Kiernan  , as in OAM (Order of Aust Medal),  as in "Clean Up Australia" , as in "Clean up the world' etc..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Kiernan

Early next year (2March2008) the next clean up aus day - will be out there, picking up all the plastic and paper and stuff.

I'm sure you've all heard that joke - that we should have given him a ticker-tape parade through the streets when he arrived back in aus after getting his UNEP Environment prize etc  



> Ian Kiernan AO (born 1940) is an environmentalist who organised the *Clean Up Australia *campaign, and in 1993 a similar *Clean Up the World* operation which attracted participation from 30 million volunteers in 80 countries. He received the Order of Australia Medal (OAM) in 1994 and the UNEP SASAKAWA Environment Prize in 1998.


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 December 2007)

Just a quick comment about polystyrene - it doesn't affect ozone layer, but sure as hell (i.e.  I agree) it still is a bludy nuisance in the misc garbage department.    

The other comment in there is that CFC's were "addressed" without hesitation a few years back (17? 20?) , and now they are on top of the ozone layer depletion problem (just goes to show you what we can do when we believe the scientists).  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Co...Advice_from_the_Union_of_Concerned_Scientists



> The Consumer's Guide to Effective Environmental Choices: Practical Advice from the Union of Concerned Scientists
> Publication date 1999
> a handbook printed by the nonprofit environmental group Union of Concerned Scientists.
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> Now based on that , only a fool would bet against it getting cooler in the near future



lol what I meant was "only a fool would bet against it getting *hotter *in the near future (as in 2011 ish).

sheesh
I keep doing these slips when I'm trading as well - 
 "buy" comes out "sell"
"1000" comes out "1000000" etc


----------



## Wysiwyg (23 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> lol what I meant was "only a fool would bet against it getting *hotter *in the near future (as in 2011 ish).
> 
> sheesh
> I keep doing these slips when I'm trading as well -
> ...




I`ve never seen you post anything on a particular stock??? Fundamental or technical???
Think you are a passive investor with a low risk approach.


----------



## numbercruncher (23 December 2007)

These sum it up for me 





Temperature rise


----------



## numbercruncher (23 December 2007)

Wysiwyg said:


> I reckon this green trend will blow over and everyone will return to their usual consumerist ways.





Im sure someone in New Orleans said that exact same sentence the day before Katrina rolled into disco 

Im sure Karma dictates that the US is going to cop more of the same if they dont buck up their Ideas .... ( Im convinced they will with the ousting of Johnnys mate)


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 December 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> These sum it up for me
> 
> 
> View attachment 16181
> ...



nc...  Here are some more (similar) graphs.

btw, the poll has finished as of this evening.  Herewith a table of similar USA and "world" polls on the same/similar subject.

I would comment that the percent saying "PROVEN, urgent!" started at about 55%, and slowly came down to 48% as more people voted for "UNPROVEN, but act anyway".     So I would conclude that 

a) the "converted" needed no preaching to - and voted early; and
b) others have semi-reluctantly come on board, but voted UNPROVEN

how good is wiki !!
and how good is this website !!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
It's a really long read ok. - but gee does it contain some great effort and real gems.  Wiki is bludy brilliant.  



> [edit] History of public opinion
> In the European Union, global warming has been a prominent and sustained issue. All European Union member states ratified the 1990 Kyoto Protocol, and many European countries had already been taking action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions prior to 1990 (for example, Margaret Thatcher advocated action against man-made climate change in 1988[1] and Germany started to take action after the Green Party took seats in Parliament in 1983). Both "global warming" and the more politically neutral "climate change" were listed by languagemonitor.com as political buzzwords or catch phrases in 2005.[2] In Europe, the notion of human influence on climate gained wide acceptance more rapidly than in many other parts of the world, most notably the United States.[3][4]









Wysiwyg said:


> I`ve never seen you post anything on a particular stock??? Fundamental or technical???
> Think you are a passive investor with a low risk approach.



m8 - lol 
trouble is I take seriously the policy that you can only post on trading if you are certain what you are talking about    I also try to let my "bets" ride without incurring too many brokerage fees - once my bets are on, I tend to leave em be :  2twocents

(Then again , - and this one is a massive joke ok ! lol  - sometimes I feel that I'd be accused of insider trading - only to find that what I would have done with my "inside knowledge" as it were  - goes legs up in 10 seconds lol.)  

I also believe that you don't go into a casino (or ASX) if you are gonna bitch if you lose 

fwiw. I'm currently holding BHP and MAH and a few others - the last few weeks have been a bludy disaster - but what the heck - that's life in the fast lane

PS - lol - another reason I post on non-trading rather than trading ?  - so that I am forced to leave my bludy bets alone - let em ride , lol !!


----------



## numbercruncher (23 December 2007)

Wayne,


Since becoming familar with your personality here at ASF, and i know your also in the pro assist the climate/planet camp, Im not really surprised with your criticisms of Gore, but I am rather surprised that you are so critical of him.

Surely some credit is deserved, I mean he could of acheived considerable wealth , perhaps not fame , in any or many other chosen fields ?

I mean most of us here are litle guys in the grand scheme of things and it seems to me Gore has popularised Climate change, the best I can do is change my personal habits, hope some redneck reads one of my posts and "thinks", and most Importantly educate my own children, but educating our children doesnt usher in change nearly fast enough.


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> how good is wiki !!
> and how good is this website !!
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
> It's a really long read ok. - but gee does it contain some great effort and real gems.  Wiki is bludy brilliant.




Also from that website ...
I reckon this is a brilliant summary (and extremely fair to both sides) :- 



> As more evidence has become available over the existence of global warming debate has moved to further controversial issues, including:
> 
> The social and environmental impacts
> The appropriate response to climate change
> ...


----------



## numbercruncher (23 December 2007)

I agree 2020 its a good read that wiki page, I linked it a few pages back in this thread with a quote to one of the denyer crowd and he dismissed it as bias because of the page title lol, oh well cant convince the unconvincable ive always reckoned ....


----------



## Julia (23 December 2007)

Wysiwyg said:


> I`ve never seen you post anything on a particular stock??? Fundamental or technical???
> Think you are a passive investor with a low risk approach.




Wysiwyg, 2020 is much too occupied being a fan of Al Gore and posting screeds about indigenous abuse to have time for the stock market.


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 December 2007)

numbercruncher said:


> I agree 2020 its a good read that wiki page, I linked it a few pages back in this thread with a quote to one of the denyer crowd and he dismissed it as bias because of the page title lol, oh well cant convince the unconvincable ive always reckoned ....



nc, 
well - when you posted it, you forget to mention it was a five hour read lol 

no wonder they "denied all knowledge" lol

I think you'll agree that they go out of their way to put forward the best scientific evidence.  - including what has and what hasn't been peer-reviewed.  - I mean , someone has done a lot of work on that site - sheesh.   I challenge anyone here to come up with 10% of that stuff. 

I'll post some examples - but I don't really expect anyone to read em 
(except maybe you and wys and billhill and spooly and ...  a few others lol) 




> A 2004 essay by Naomi Oreskes in the journal Science reported a survey of 928 abstracts of peer-reviewed papers related to global climate change in the ISI database.[21] Oreskes stated that "Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position. ... This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies." Benny Peiser claimed to have found flaws in Oreskes' work,[22] but his attempted refutation is disputed.[23][24][25] Peiser later withdrew parts of his criticism, also commenting that "the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact. However, this majority consensus is far from unanimous."





> Timothy Ball asserts that skeptics have gone underground for "job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent."[28]
> 
> At least one survey of the scientific community has found the opposite problem -- New Scientist notes that in surveys a much larger fraction of U.S. scientists consistently state that they are pressured by their employers or by U.S. government bodies to deny that global warming results from human activities [14] or risk losing funding.





> The IPCC
> Main article: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
> A joint statement issued by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK) said:
> 
> The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world’s most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified.[49]





> While some critics have argued that the IPCC overstates likely global warming, others have made the opposite criticism. David Biello, writing in the Scientific American, argues that, because of the need to secure consensus among governmental representatives, the IPCC reports give conservative estimates of the likely extent and effects of global warming. [61] Climate scientist James Hansen argues that the IPCC's conservativeness seriously underestimates the risk of sea-level rise on the order of meters””enough to inundate many low-lying areas, such as the southern third of Florida.[62]






> The consensus position (as represented for example by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report) says that solar radiation may have increased by 0.12 W/m ² since 1750, compared to 1.6 W/m ² for the net anthropogenic forcing.[81] The TAR said, "The combined change in radiative forcing of the two major natural factors (solar variation and volcanic aerosols) is estimated to be negative for the past two, and possibly the past four, decades." [82] The AR4 makes no direct assertions on the recent role of solar forcing, but the previous statement is consistent with the AR4's figure





> It is well known that populated areas are warmer than rural areas. Skeptics contend that stations located in more populated areas could show warming due to increased heat generated by cities, rather than a global temperature rise.[citation needed] The IPCC Third Assessment Report acknowledges that the urban heat island is an important local effect, but cites analyses of historical data indicating that the effect of the urban heat island on the global temperature trend is no more than 0.05  °C (0.09  °F) degrees through 1990.





> More recently, Roger A. Pielke and Stephen McIntyre have criticized the US instrumental temperature record and adjustments to it, and Pielke and others have criticized the poor quality siting of a number of weather stations in the United States [88] [89]. In response, Anthony Watts began a volunteer effort to photographically document the siting quality of these stations.[90] Based on the work of Watts, Stephen McIntyre has completed a reconstruction of U.S. temp history using only those weather stations identified so far as meeting the requirements to be CRN level 1 (excellent) or level 2 (good) stations. The higher quality stations indicate the warmest years in the U.S. were 1934 and 1921, followed by 1998 and 2006. [14] McIntyre has made all of his methods, data and code available for others to reproduce his findings. *McIntyre's analysis has not been published in the peer-reviewed literature*.





> Equilibrium climate sensitivity refers to the equilibrium change in global mean surface temperature following a doubling of the atmospheric (equivalent) CO2 concentration. This value is estimated by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report as “likely to be in the range 2 to 4.5 °C with a best estimate of about 3 °C.”





> However, The Stern report, like many other reports, notes the past correlation between CO2 emissions and economic growth and then extrapolates using a "business as usual" scenario to predict GDP growth and hence CO2 levels, concluding that:
> 
> “ Increasing scarcity of fossil fuels alone will not stop emissions growth in time. The stocks of hydrocarbons that are profitable to extract are more than enough to take the world to levels of CO2 well beyond 750ppm with very dangerous consequences for climate change impacts.[98] ”
> 
> According to Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, "the earth would warm by 8 degrees Celsius (14.4 degrees Fahrenheit) if humans use the entire planet’s available fossil fuels by the year 2300."[99]





> Arctic specialist Mark Serreze said, following the record low in 2007,[102] "If you asked me a couple of years ago when the Arctic could lose all of its ice then I would have said 2100, or 2070 maybe. But now I think that 2030 is a reasonable estimate


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 December 2007)

professor_frink said:


> Sorry 2020,
> 
> Dams do make methane, but how much exactly?(I don't have an exact figure). Either way, using a lot more hydro to me is more beneficial compared with nuclear- dams can be knocked down if required(or if something better comes along) in the future, and the area will recover a hell of  a lot quicker than it will take for an area to recover from radioactive waste spilling out into the environment when we try and store it.



Methane emissions depends on what (other than water) is in the storage. If you've got lots of biomass then there will be methane. No biomass and you won't have methane emissions.

Easy solution is to remove the biomass first. We're not about to stop using wood and if an area is to be flooded for a storage then logging it first is sensible.

Various studies in Tasmania have shown that, in general, methane emissions form the hydro storages are not large relative to the power produced. That's because not that much biomass has been flooded in creating the lakes.

Another key point is durability. Morinna power station is 100 years old. It's still working fine. Likewise plenty of other old hydro plants either still working fine or would be if they hadn't been superseded by larger plants using the same water.

Lake Margaret is another example. It operated continuously 1914 - 2006 and is planned to be back in full operation around 2010. The dam and machinery is all still good (minor repairs needed to 1 (of 7) turbine). Only trouble is the wooden pipeline thinned out, was losing 10% of its flow due to leaks everywhere and became unsafe hence it was shut down. Once the old pipe is removed and a new one built (which will take a while since it's being done "the old way" using timber to preserve the heritage and tourism values of the scheme) it will be good as new. There's no reason why the scheme shouldn't still be working in another 100 or even 1000 years time.

So any consideration of hydro power methane emissions needs to be in view of the reality that any such emissions are temporary as vegetation rots whereas the power is, in practice, virtually forever.

As for eventually dismantling the dams, yes it can be done reasonably easily. Even no dams guru Bob Brown has publicly acknowledged that the damage done to the environment is, in practice, reversible on a reasonable timescale of a few decades at most. Contrast that with the effectively permanent, and far more dangerous, mess left by fossil fuels and nuclear.


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 December 2007)

Julia said:


> Wysiwyg, 2020 is much too occupied being a fan of Al Gore and posting screeds about indigenous abuse to have time for the stock market.



...  

the logic of the market?
so I knew early that one of the Pilbara mining companies had a bad time during last year's cylones - so I sold - since then their shares have headed north like a homesick angel as they say lol - .  
don't talk to me about predicting the bludy market 
(and believe me, you don;t want to follow my advise on investing lol)

PS Julia
must be your turn to feed the jukebox with a song on "tunes".


----------



## numbercruncher (23 December 2007)

Julia said:


> Wysiwyg, 2020 is much too occupied being a fan of Al Gore and posting screeds about indigenous abuse to have time for the stock market.





Youve got to admit the market is pretty boring atm , to much doom and gloom , may as well concentrate on some other pressing issues


----------



## professor_frink (24 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> .........
> 
> 
> > "If the state of the GBR is that bad that it could be gone within our lifetime, then it may be time to face facts and go and see whilst you still can,"
> ...




How can you take 1 comment I've made, chop it up into 2 pieces, call me selfish AND agree with it. You say that we will probably lose the Great Barrier reef due to man made global warming in our lifetime, *AND* that if we stopped emitting right now, the planet would still be warming in 2100. If 2+2=4, we can't save it based off what YOU said. How can I possibly be selfish for drawing conclusions based on comments made by the pro AGW crowd?????

I'll make this my last post in this thread 2020 and leave you to it. I've cast my vote, had a rant or two, and will leave it at that. I seem to have spent an awful lot of time looking into this topic recently and have basically come to the conclusion that I don't have the intelligence to sift through the large amounts of information that is out there and figure out what's actually happening, especially considering I don't have any formal education in this area. I congratulate those of you that have been able to do so. You are all quite a bit smarter than I am

Think I stick to my punting, sorry, trading, and leave the political debate to the rest of you


----------



## 2020hindsight (24 December 2007)

professor_frink said:


> How can you take 1 comment I've made, chop it up into 2 pieces, call me selfish AND agree with it. You say that we will probably lose the Great Barrier reef due to man made global warming in our lifetime, *AND* that if we stopped emitting right now, the planet would still be warming in 2100. If 2+2=4, we can't save it based off what YOU said. How can I possibly be selfish for drawing conclusions based on comments made by the pro AGW crowd?????



touche.


----------



## chops_a_must (24 December 2007)

professor_frink said:


> That's not really answering the question 2020. But I wasn't really expecting you too, as I already knew the answer, I just wanted to bring it up though
> It seems to be something that is brushed over pretty consistently by the "green" movement. Mainly due to the fact that radioactive waste is anything but green. But then again, so is uranium mining.



I don't know of any genuine environmental groups that advocate the nuclear option as a real alternative. Because the mining process is so environmentally destructive by itself / has more environmental dangers than other mining. It seems to just be used as a phoney environmental policy by conservative politicians. However, a lot of environmental groups see nuclear as an unfortunate necessity in a small number of countries...


----------



## 2020hindsight (24 December 2007)

well to me it's a simple question.  

GBR* (etc etc ) or nuclear power?  
(* at least some remnants of the GBR, which might repair with time - or in any case, maybe avoid armageddon) 

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



> Nuclear power is a type of nuclear technology involving the controlled use of nuclear fission to release energy for work including propulsion, heat, and the generation of electricity. Nuclear energy is produced by a controlled nuclear chain reaction and creates heat—which is used to boil water, produce steam, and drive a steam turbine. The turbine can be used for mechanical work and also to generate electricity.
> 
> As of 2004, nuclear power provided 6.5% of the world's energy and 15.7% of the world's electricity, with the U.S., France, and Japan together accounting for 57% of nuclear generated electricity.[1] As of 2007, the IAEA reported there are 439 nuclear power reactors in operation in the world,[2] operating in 31 countries.[3]
> 
> ...




Allegedly (according to wiki) Aus is considering its first plant 
Also Historical and projected world energy use by energy source, 1980-2030, Source: International Energy Outlook 2007, EIA. (coal charging upwards, both in total , and in percentage   ):-

PS (unless we do something about it of course)


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 December 2007)

wayneL said:


> But is anyone acting on it? Not from what I see.
> 
> What are you doing 20?




wayne, since you don't want to talk about changing the course of national thinking (about fossil fuels)

or voting out dinosaurs like Howard who refuse to sign Kyoto

and prefer to concentrate on individuals walking etc 

then I suddenly realise how we can resolve this 
next time we meet , we can have a long distance race. Presumably the one who has been doing the most walking / running instead of driving will be the winner ?

I used to run to the shop when I was a kid, and have done so ever since.  I was captain of (one of the) Army cross country teams.    - and purely because I would run to the shop,  post office, any other message I was sent on,  every day of my bludy life.  And still prefer to walk that drive if I can .      

happy ny


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 December 2007)

wayneL said:


> As another general principle, one of the worst things for any sort of marketing (and lets face it GW is being marketed) is overkill.
> 
> Pound that message too hard and folks just turn off. I think there is a real danger of that already occurring (in true American fashion). Most people I speak to who accept GW as fact, accept it as fait accompli.
> 
> They've been told we're doomed so effectively, that it's "OK, we're screwed, so lets just enjoy life as best we can. we'll be dead anyway."



I'm very much a "fight to the end" sort of person but when it comes to global warming, I accept it as inevitable for practical purposes.

Why? Because the ONLY way it will be stopped is with a complete transformation of energy supply to 100% non-CO2 emitting sources or alternatively a complete reworking of the banking system.

Given that there is basically no support whatsoever (outside a few engineers and renewable energy companies etc) for the former, that leaves a banking revolution as the only hope. 

Even environmentally focused political parties generally support a continuation of constant growth in fossil fuel use, albeit in a somewhat disguised manner, so there's no real hope for a real shift to renewables that actually cuts emissions. At least not unless business chooses to leave politicians the world over in the dust - possible but not probable.

As for the ordinary man on the street, a quick visit to the TV section of any Harvey Norman etc store will quickly reveal that Joe Average doesn't give a damn about climate change. Simply standing on the street corner watching the sort of cars they drive, and how they drive them, will have the same effect - actions speak a LOT louder than the empty words most utter on the subject.

That over 90% of Australians choose to use fossil fuels to heat water when cleaner options are affordable for most says all we need to know about the average person's concern for the climate. It's stuff all really.


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 December 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> That over 90% of Australians choose to use fossil fuels to heat water when cleaner options are affordable for most says all we need to know about the average person's concern for the climate. It's stuff all really.



smurf - you remind me 
how easy is it to have a bank of black pvc pipes up on the roof ?- the cheapest solar hot water system you're gonna find  


(Ps I don't follow your banking revolution - but my bank manager is revolting - does that help ?)


----------



## numbercruncher (26 December 2007)

Spare a thought for Perth today, Hottest December day on Record and scary bushfires


----------



## numbercruncher (26 December 2007)

> QUEENSLANDERS are the highest producers of greenhouse gas in the world, emitting 38.9 tonnes per person every year – nearly eleven tonnes more than the Australian average, a first-ever audit has found.
> 
> The audit, undertaken by the Wet Tropics Management Authority between Cooktown and Cardwell, offers stark warning about the threats of climate change.
> Scientists have warned the Great Barrier Reef may be dead within 20 years and one of the world's most ancient rainforests in the Daintree faces extinction under just a few degrees of global warming.




http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22970274-952,00.html

Ok, someone needs to have a long hard word with Queenslanders !


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> (Ps I don't follow your banking revolution - but my bank manager is revolting - does that help ?)



In short, with the fiat currency system we have now tomorrow's growth is collateral for today's debt. The entire system has only two modes - growth or collapse - it doesn't work as a steady state.

Now, in practice, economic growth means energy demand growth. Argue all you like about efficiency etc but history says economy up = energy demand up. 

The few periods that have occurred where energy demand appears to have fallen (eg oil worldwide in the early 1980's, electricity in Tasmania in the 1990's) were associated with both a stagnating / contracting economy and general economic strife, fuel switching to some other energy source and/or changing the location of energy consumption to outside the area being considered (eg export raw materials instead of manufacturing will lower energy consumption in one area but it keeps rising globally).

If we switched to even 50% renewable electricity then it won't cut emissions. By the time we could implement such a change, growth in non-electricity fuel use (which is well over half the total in most countries anyway) plus electricity demand growth would ensure that total fossil fuel use still went up, not down. Sure, it would be less than it otherwise would have been, but total emissions would keep rising. And of course not even the most hard line people are seriously proposing we go as far as 50% renewable electricity any time soon.

Even John Howard's 25 nuclear reactors wouldn't help. Due solely to demand growth, we'd be using more coal by the time they are built than we do now. And that's with enough reactors to supply our entire present electricity demand (excluding existing hydro) - but it would be less than half of demand by the time they could be built.

So either we go to 100% renewable / nuclear for all energy, or damn close to it, or total fossil fuel use will continue to rise. OR we radically change the banking system to one that doesn't require constant growth.

The only way I can see fossil fuel use actually falling is if:

1. For whatever reason above ground availability of fossil fuels declines. A situation that's happening now with oil but being more than offset by rising coal and gas production. OR

2. We actively force down total fossil fuel use. That means focusing on the acutal total quantity in tonnes, barrels etc and not as a % of total energy use. The latter is a flawed approach (hence not opposed by the fossil fuel industry - a point that says it all really) as previously explained. Given that such a move would, without a move towards total reliance on renewables / nuclear being part of it, collapse the economy it is not likely to happen. OR

3. The present financial system comes to an end and is replaced by one that does not, in practice, involve next year always requiring more energy than this year. That could be either due to a radical change to an alternative system or simply the collapse of the present system and consequent economic strife.

I'd love to see fossil fuels consigned to the history books but I just can't see anything other than constant growth until such time as it either becomes physically impossible (peaking production) or the consequences become so blindingly obvious that we accept whatever happens economically (ie actual collapse of the present banking system) as the lesser of two evils. 

Technically, we can go renewable for just about everything. Aviation, petrochemicals and a few industrial processes are the main exceptions (though nitrogen fertilizer can be made from electricity - been done before without much trouble). Everything else we can do with, mostly, electricity. And we know how to go very close to 100% renewable for power generation. Long distance trucks etc can be replaced with trains (worked before). Short distance road vehicles can go electric with some niche use of hydrogen. Ships can go solar / wind / battery. 

All technically very possible but simply tinkering around the edges with x% renewable electricity, a bit of insulation on hot water pipes and different light bulbs does little to take us off the constant growth in fossil fuels track.


----------



## Aussiejeff (27 December 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> .... I'd love to see fossil fuels consigned to the history books but *I just can't see anything other than constant growth until such time as it either becomes physically impossible (peaking production) or the consequences become so blindingly obvious that we accept whatever happens economically (ie actual collapse of the present banking system) as the lesser of two evils*.
> 
> Technically, we can go renewable for just about everything. Aviation, petrochemicals and a few industrial processes are the main exceptions (though nitrogen fertilizer can be made from electricity - been done before without much trouble). Everything else we can do with, mostly, electricity. And we know how to go very close to 100% renewable for power generation. Long distance trucks etc can be replaced with trains (worked before). Short distance road vehicles can go electric with some niche use of hydrogen. Ships can go solar / wind / battery.
> 
> *All technically very possible but simply tinkering around the edges with x% renewable electricity, a bit of insulation on hot water pipes and different light bulbs does little to take us off the constant growth in fossil fuels track*.




Pretty much in total agreement with those observations, Smurf1976. I think history shows us conclusively that even though we might LIKE to think the bulk of humanity will be flexible enough to drastically change an ever increasing consumptive lifestyle in order to ultimately SAVE ITSELF from catastrophe or even near extinction, it seems to be in our genetic makeup that come crunch time, no-one wants to forego the trappings of "civilisation". 

My own observations that lead me to make this comment are simply these.... 

We all know the classic story of what happened to the occupants of Easter Island and their own form of "civilisation". Could they control their population growth to a sustainable level, thus warding off their (in glorious hindsight) inevitable catastropic decline & demise courtesy of raping the island of its sustainable bounty? NO. 

It seems clear to me that modern "civilisation" has learnt nothing from that valuable ancient environmental and ecological lesson. Unlike the hot air from both sides in the climate debate, it is an irrefutable FACT that the planet's population is growing at an alarming and ultimately un-sustainable rate. So what are the planet's inhabitants collectively doing about that? In practice, virtually nothing. Significantly reducing population growth is the single biggest factor that could reduce growth in emissions - not many pundits want to talk about that one.

Why not? Our very future existence is at stake and yet for year after year, decade after decade, NOTHING CHANGES except the rapacious hunger for ever richer "trappings of civilisation". I often think of the lemmings when I ponder the sillier side of humanity and wonder whether there is an unchangeable genetic flaw in the human species that predisposes us on a cyclic basis to set up our own future destruction. 

Evidence of the complete collapse of earlier "civilisations" should be warning enough, but with an ever-optimistic "she'll be right, mate" attitude, I feel this current "civilised planet" is heading at 200kph down a one way road towards a sheer precipice with only 100m left to make an emergency braking manouvre. So, who's gonna apply the brake? 

*scratches head till brain seeps out.....*

Happy New Year!


AJ


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 December 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> 1. In short, with the fiat currency system we have now tomorrow's growth is collateral for today's debt. The entire system has only two modes - growth or collapse - it doesn't work as a steady state.
> 
> 2. history says economy up = energy demand up.
> ....
> ...



THanks Smurf.. 

1. liberty, equality, fraternity, and get-it-through-your-thick-head-tax-on-power-and-growth-mentality

we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight in the banks, ....

2. ....  and as you say, what happens in Aus is chicken feed to what will happen in China and India (as they try to get 10% of what we have).  - still we have to do our share - especially as prorata we are one of the worst.  

3.  let's do it

4. seems to me that planes are running pretty much 100% full these days - gotta be a good start - put air prices up maybe. 

petrochemicals? - could go back to using wool instead of synthetics I guess; polyethylene, plastics etc - millions of dumb products, guess we could could reduce by 50% if we cut out half the idiotic toys etc which usually break before boxing day? - at least many are recyclable )

5. let's do it

6. let's do it

7. ditto 

8. ditto

9. "All technically very possible but simply tinkering around the edges with x% renewable electricity, a bit of insulation on hot water pipes and different light bulbs does little to take us off the constant growth in fossil fuels track."

agreed - let's stop tinkering and get serious. 
give your wind turbines a go - and solar photovoltaic - even dams - although Traveston (for instance) is average depth 1.5m - not much power there m8.

If it turns out that they can't cope (and in themseves are just tinkering , albeit perhaps with a capital T) , then the next gerneration can go nuclear - in the interests that there might be a generation after them  

Also put a massive tax on big petrol guzzling cars -  also on car-racing events , even formula 1 etc - also on the US military etc


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> THanks Smurf..
> 
> 1. liberty, equality, fraternity, and get-it-through-your-thick-head-tax-on-power-and-growth-mentality
> 
> ...




Does that include the Bentley Arnage?

Is there any room for beauty in this brave new world of global warming warning?

I must again read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Bob Pirsig and see what he has to say about it.

gg


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 December 2007)

Aussiejeff said:


> it seems to be in our genetic makeup that come crunch time, no-one wants to forego the trappings of "civilisation". .....
> 
> Easter Island and their own form of "civilisation". .. population ... .  inevitable catastropic decline & demise courtesy of raping the island of its sustainable bounty ........
> 
> ...




AJ, spot on with your Easter Island comparison  - likewise the lemmings , likewise the head scratch. 

Someday (100years?, 200? 1000?) someone will be digging around doing a port-mortem on the human race - "seems they just didn't like it here" - 
"a fraction selfish and shortsighted  - almost to a fault"



> Unlike the hot air from both sides in the climate debate, it is an irrefutable FACT that the planet's population is growing at an alarming and ultimately un-sustainable rate. So what are the planet's inhabitants collectively doing about that? In practice, virtually nothing. Significantly reducing population growth is the single biggest factor that could reduce growth in emissions - not many pundits want to talk about that one.




Apart from the fact that I agree that we aren't doing enough - I would add that we aren't saying enough, nor with sufficient conviction. 

PS I am so sick of that pun about "hot air" lol

imo, forget the hot air - the question is will it take a red hot bludy poker shoved up the orifices of those in a position of influence -  to get (even more) international agreement and move this Titanic matter in the right direction.


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 December 2007)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I must again read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance by Bob Pirsig and see what he has to say about it.



"she'll be right mate"
closest an aussie ever got to a Zen buddhist statement 
we may be the lucky country, but I gotta feeling our luck is gonna run out if we don't use our brains a bit more. 
(and , like, yesterday - gotta try to make up for that idiot Howard's contribution) 



> Does that include the Bentley Arnage?



ok - we'll put more weight on a tax on the petrol - rather than the car 

you can admire it in the garage


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (28 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> "she'll be right mate"
> closest an aussie ever got to a Zen buddhist statement
> we may be the lucky country, but I gotta feeling our luck is gonna run out if we don't use our brains a bit more.
> 
> ...




Thanks mate, you had me worried there for a few minutes.

gg


----------



## roland (28 December 2007)

Buy a book, and save the world:

quote:
buying two books worth £26 instead of an Optimus Prime Transformer toy robot costing £30, for example, this would save around 25kg of CO2 in a year.

Households that usually buy several pricey electronic toys and gadgets at Christmas, but pledge to buy at least two less this year, would save some 55kg of CO2 if they bought books instead. 

And households that normally buys lots of expensive electronic toys and gadgets at Christmas but pledge to buy at least three less this year, would save more than 122kg CO2 if books were bought instead.


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 December 2007)

roland said:


> buying two books worth £26 instead of an Optimus Prime Transformer toy robot costing £30, for example, this would save around 25kg of CO2 in a year..




good point roland ..
Heck - you can even read em without the need for paper involvement 

http://whitewolf.newcastle.edu.au/words/authors.html
Top site this one - includes some books complete ( eg Defoe's "Robinson Crusoe")

I know Robinson Crusoe mightn't qualify as a rivetting read (for the nth reread lol) - but the day will come when you can read other books / authors - ! (like Dawkins, Sagan etc 

Then again , Crusoe might have made a great MD for Telstra etc 

Ah heck - it's holiday season ....
at the risk of annoying some, I'll add a long attachment - read it or not - up to you. 



> Here is an extract from Chapter 4 of Daniel Defoe's Robinson Crusoe  I have always enjoyed his quaint use of english  - and this quaint self analysis technique. I'm sure on a bigger island, (eg TLS/ BHP boardroom) he would have risen to managing director for instance
> 
> I'm sure there are several messages here, and, whilst hoping not be too bold, I have nontheless emboldened a few phrases.
> a) he really missed ink! lol - why didnt he just use the internet?
> ...






> And this put me in mind that I wanted many things notwithstanding all that I had amassed together; *and of these, ink was one*; as also a spade, pickaxe, and shovel, to dig or remove the earth; needles, pins, and thread; as for linen, I soon learned to want that without much difficulty.
> 
> This want of tools made every work I did go on heavily; and it was near a whole year before I had entirely finished my little pale, or surrounded my habitation. The piles, or stakes, which were as heavy as I could well lift, were a long time in cutting and preparing in the woods, and more, by far, in bringing home; so that I spent sometimes two days in cutting and bringing home one of those posts, and a third day in driving it into the ground; for which purpose I got a heavy piece of wood at first, but at last bethought myself of one of the iron crows; which, however, though I found it, made driving those posts or piles very laborious and tedious work. But what need I have been concerned at the tediousness of anything I had to do, seeing I had time enough to do it in? nor had I any other employment, if that had been over, at least that I could foresee, except the ranging the island to seek for food, which I did, more or less, every day.
> 
> ...


----------



## noirua (28 December 2007)

I notice those weighty Company Annual Reports may become a thing of the past as it is now necessary to request one. Probably, hardly anyone downloads a copy of a full Annual Report?


----------



## roland (28 December 2007)

noirua said:


> I notice those weighty Company Annual Reports may become a thing of the past as it is now necessary to request one. Probably, hardly anyone downloads a copy of a full Annual Report?




Not only that, I sometimes get annoyed that "My Company" is wasting so much of "my" profits in producing all that paperwork....


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 December 2007)

spot on noi
and you go to a conference - you get a CD instead of a coupla volumes


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 December 2007)

2020hindsight said:


> THanks Smurf..
> 
> 1. liberty, equality, fraternity, and get-it-through-your-thick-head-tax-on-power-and-growth-mentality
> 
> we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight in the banks, ....



You've somewhat lost me with the "thick-head-tax-on-power-and-growth-mentality". Was that a reference to something I've posted? 

Anyway, I'll make the observation that we need to be VERY careful in taxing things as it's easy to produce a bad outcome.

For example, on the surface it makes some sense to tax electricity since gas is a cleaner option for the householder. However, (1) many homes don't have access to gas and (2) in the long term we need to be going 100% electric - wind, solar etc produce electricity not gas.

So in that example it might make sense to tax _coal-fired_ or more sensibly (in view of peak oil and gas) all _fossil fuel_ electricity _generation_ but it makes no sense to tax electricity per se. Indeed it makes sense to switch _to_ electricity once we've got a serious plan to generate it without using fossil fuels.

Get it wrong and all sorts of nasty things can result. That 60% of Launceston homes ended up using wood heating by the early 1990's, giving the city an air quality standard that made even Sydney look incredibly clean in comparisson, is a classic example. You even used to see the smoke in headlight beams at night and it didn't smell real nice either. Not surprising with a particulate level at 3 times the WHO "safe" limit.

All that was fixed simply by dropping unit rates for electricity, removing the defacto "tax" on high consumption (given that heating is typically about 50% of household energy use in Tas) by separately metering heating and not recovering any of the fixed cost through heating unit rates. Throw in a massive marketing campaign with a product branding ("HydroHeat") and now electric heating dominates statewide for the first time ever. Not good for the greenhouse issue of course, the marginal source of generation being fossil fuels not hydro, but a win for human health.

Air-conditioners are another one. The single greatest energy saving device you can buy in a cold climate is an air-conditioner. And of course there's really nothing wrong with having one in a hot climate if the power source is renewable. And you'd be surprise how little they add to overall energy use anyway despite all the negative publicity - they're just an easy target because of their very peaky demand and an uneducated public.

So tax the problem, not the symptoms. Tax the coal, oil and gas but don't tax the renewable alternatives. Tax at the coal-fired power station, not the household meter since the latter can equally measure 100% renewable energy if the incentive becomes strong enough to supply it.


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 December 2007)

no reference to you , just my own thoughts on the matter 
call is micro-economic reform 



2020hindsight said:


> THanks Smurf..
> 
> agreed - let's stop tinkering and get serious.
> give your wind turbines a go - and solar photovoltaic - even dams - although Traveston (for instance) is average depth 1.5m - not much power there m8.



gotta feeling that the alternative dam was much higher (and didn't affect so many farms) -  although how efficient it would be for hydro power I don;t know - my guess is pretty hopeless , but certainly better than Traveston 

PS how about a carbon tax on airline tickets ?


----------



## numbercruncher (28 December 2007)

A carbon tax on Airline tickets should be one of the first things rolled out !

Look at just how much uncalled for Air travel there is for no other reason than its sooo damn cheap !


----------



## kivvygosh (28 December 2007)

> Smurf-
> The only way I can see fossil fuel use actually falling is if:
> ....
> 2. We actively force down total fossil fuel use. That means focusing on the acutal total quantity in tonnes, barrels etc and not as a % of total energy use. The latter is a flawed approach (hence not opposed by the fossil fuel industry - a point that says it all really) as previously explained. Given that such a move would, without a move towards total reliance on renewables / nuclear being part of it, collapse the economy it is not likely to happen. OR



You'll find that climate change proponents, and targets set at Kyoto and discussed at Bali, all focus on a percentage reduction on 1990 levels for developed countries.  1990 levels are seen as a benchmark or a base from which we should work - we our PM talks about 60% reduction by 2050 he's talking about having a CO2 emission in 2050 which is 60% lower than it was in 1990.  There's no metric for fossil fuel as a percentage of total energy supply.

You note that the previous government announced increases in the portion of energy from renewable sources (i.e. less of our total energy will come from fossil fuels).  This has also been put forward by energy companies.  It's the argument for those who don't really believe there is a problem, and don't really want to reduce CO2 emissions.


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 December 2007)

kivvygosh said:


> You note that the previous government announced increases in the portion of energy from renewable sources (i.e. less of our total energy will come from fossil fuels).  This has also been put forward by energy companies.  It's the argument for those who don't really believe there is a problem, and don't really want to reduce CO2 emissions.




spot on .. fortunately they have gone the way of the dinosaurs they were. 
apart from the fact that they chaired APEC which came up with very serious "aspirational" goals of one day maybe doing "something"


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 December 2007)

kivvygosh said:


> You'll find that climate change proponents, and targets set at Kyoto and discussed at Bali, all focus on a percentage reduction on 1990 levels for developed countries.  1990 levels are seen as a benchmark or a base from which we should work - we our PM talks about 60% reduction by 2050 he's talking about having a CO2 emission in 2050 which is 60% lower than it was in 1990.  There's no metric for fossil fuel as a percentage of total energy supply.
> 
> You note that the previous government announced increases in the portion of energy from renewable sources (i.e. less of our total energy will come from fossil fuels).  This has also been put forward by energy companies.  It's the argument for those who don't really believe there is a problem, and don't really want to reduce CO2 emissions.



I note that Labor has also gone down the x% renewable track along with Liberal and Green. That's my point - until we get serious calls for 100% and a shift _to_ electricity from gas etc we're still stuck on the emissions growth track if at a slightly slower pace.

That said, it does make more sense in the long term to be focusing on total fossil fuel use rather than emissions per se. The latter approach can all too easily embed higher emissions tomorrow in order to deliver short term cuts today - hence the fossil fuel industry prefers that approach. 

It amounts to covering up the problem with temporary measures, mainly increased use of gas, which do nothing to reduce our overall fossil fuel dependency thus setting us up for sharply higher emissions when gas inevitably declines. 

That this strategy has reached the backfire stage is the primary problem in the US cutting emissions. The gas has peaked meaning the US is heading back to coal. Exactly what will happen everywhere that embraces the "dash for gas" rather than a switch from fossil fuels to renewables.


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 December 2007)

A point of clarification about my last two posts.

What I'm saying is:

1. Fix the problem. Actually cut emissions rather than trying to be seen to be doing something by tinkering with light bulbs etc.

2. Fix it in a manner that is sustainable and doesn't either (1) backfire at a future date and produce vastly higher emissions or (2) simply swap one problem for another.

In regard to point 2, switching to gas is the classic example. A 46% immediate drop in emissions compared to coal sounds attractive. But the downside is gas reserves are massively smaller than coal worldwide. Once it's gone, and that is something many here will live to see if usage is increased as many proposed, then we're in a real pickle. 

Odds are we then go to running practically everything via inefficient coal liquefaction and gasification processes - something that will make present day emissions seem trivial compared to what we'll have then.

And of course the other downside with gas is geographic concentration. Russia and the Middle East between them have nearly 75% of world reserves. No matter what your stance on the Iraq war etc, it's hard to argue that having the whole world totally dependent on a handfull of countries for not only oil but for virtually all energy is going to be peaceful. 

At the very least it puts the immediate future of most countries in the hands of very few and creates the greatest political weapon imaginable - not a wise move IMO. We're in enough trouble with needing oil/gas for transport as it is without relying on it for electricity as well.

So fundamentally, just changing the fossil fuel doesn't work in the long term. Easy today, worse tomorrow. 

Also with constant growth we end up with emissions eventually coming back to present levels and then continuing to rise. It's like switching to low tar cigarettes in the hope you'll avoid the health effects while continuing to smoke more and more of them every year. Odds are it won't end well.

I don't hate gas by the way. I own quite a few gas stocks. But it's not the panacea that many claim. It's clean_er_, not clean. Plenty of it, but not for long if we keep using more and more each year - which comes back to the problem of constant growth.


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 December 2007)

Nothing is simple where this is concerned. Read the following and tell me which is the best way to heat the house - it's anything but simple with no clear winner (see page 14 especially).

Dr John Todd is one of the fairly well known energy gurus in Tas by the way. Been around for ages doing this sort of stuff.

http://www.hydro.com.au/handson/sustliv/johntoddtalk.pdf


----------



## Aussiejeff (30 December 2007)

Good read, Smurf1976.

In fact, his very last *recommended* option of "putting on warmer clothing" rather than using more energy for space heating was the one we used last year that cut over 35% off our winter gas space heating bill. All we did was buy one of those ultra-light-weight thermally efficient Made-in-China blankets for our bed, then turned down the comfort setting for night operation by 3.5C (from 18.5C to 15C). 

Honestly, apart from having to dash a bit to the closet to jump into our tracksuits and ugg boots, we coped easily with the change. Mind you, it makes it a lot easier not being encumbered with screeching young'uns demanding 25C all year round "or else"!. LOL

Can you imagine all those thousands of nasty, black, CO2 balloons we must have kept grounded too!! 

New Years Cheers,

AJ


----------



## Julia (30 December 2007)

Aussiejeff said:


> Good read, Smurf1976.
> 
> In fact, his very last *recommended* option of "putting on warmer clothing" rather than using more energy for space heating was the one we used last year that cut over 35% off our winter gas space heating bill. All we did was buy one of those ultra-light-weight thermally efficient Made-in-China blankets for our bed, then turned down the comfort setting for night operation by 3.5C (from 18.5C to 15C).
> 
> ...



Do you run your air conditioning/heating all year round, AJ?


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 December 2007)

:topic:
I also notice sydneysiders dropped more than 10% (519 to 464) on average water usage this year too - oops compared to  1974 lol (probably a particularly wasteful year to use as datum lol )

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/30/2128885.htm?section=justin


> Sydney saves 57b litres of water in 2007
> Posted 8 hours 5 minutes ago
> 
> New figures from Sydney Water show Sydneysiders have saved about 57 billion litres of water this year.
> ...




If we say that the average suburb is about 6,000 people (very roughly), then how much water did a suburb use then in 2007?
464 litres x 365 x 6,000 = 1 gigalitre 

this is the volume that would be contained under the harbour bridge deck (50m high ) x its width ( 50m) x its span between springing points (500m - less the triangular bits at each end)


----------



## Aussiejeff (30 December 2007)

Julia said:


> Do you run your air conditioning/heating all year round, AJ?




Hi Julia.

Barring the occasional unforeseen extreme weather event, for about 2 months in the changeover between early autumn and late autumn - we rarely have ducted gas heating on, and in the changeover between early spring to late spring - almost never have the ducted evaporative cooling on. So in total, about 4 months with virtually no use of either system.

While it has been possible to reduce the heating bill significantly with very little outlay and some judicious re-programming of the controller, lowering the cooling bill would take a lot more moolah (would need to install lots more roofing insulation, double-glazed windows etc, etc. Since we are paying rent for the house, this definitely won't happen unless the landlord wants to personally lash out big time! 

Cheers,

AJ


----------



## Julia (30 December 2007)

Aussiejeff said:


> Hi Julia.
> 
> Barring the occasional unforeseen extreme weather event, for about 2 months in the changeover between early autumn and late autumn - we rarely have ducted gas heating on, and in the changeover between early spring to late spring - almost never have the ducted evaporative cooling on. So in total, about 4 months with virtually no use of either system.
> 
> ...



Hi Aj

Wow, I'm really surprised you need it that much in Victoria!  I'm in Qld, four hours north of Brisbane and only use the air/con about five nights a year and never during the day.  Do houses in Victoria have ceiling fans?
Good point about the insulation.  Few houses here are built with any insulation at all.  Unbelievable.
Must admit in NZ we needed the central heating in winter.


----------



## numbercruncher (31 December 2007)

Bit of Global Warming action for our Victorian cousins ....




> *Melbourne is expected to have its hottest day in 2007 on Monday, a year climate experts say is Victoria's hottest on record*.




http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=155400


----------



## Smurf1976 (31 December 2007)

Adelaide 43, Melbourne 42 (43 in some parts), even Hobart 33. Already 41 in Adelaide and it's only 11am local time there.

Also very low humidity and, in Hobart at least, strong winds are forecast this afternoon. So regardless of the global warming debate, let's hope no idiots start fires - I'm sure the firefighters don't want to spend New Year's Eve running around with hoses trying to save houses etc.

Not sure about Vic and SA, but it's a fire and watering ban day today in southern Tas as with the strong winds the risk is pretty high. Let's hope the only fire tonight is the fireworks.


----------



## 2020hindsight (31 December 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> let's hope no idiots start fires - I'm sure the firefighters don't want to spend New Year's Eve running around with hoses trying to save houses etc.



Smurf, we had fires in Sydney a few years back - arsonist-initiated .  
 I met some firies who were bludy exhausted - the supervisor said to me "we caught one the other day - I've got two utes, one with a rifle (usually to put dying animals out of their misery) , one without.   He's lucky I was driving the second one that day. "


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 January 2008)

Well I think everyone in Adelaide, Melbourne and Hobart would have been quite warm last night. Ridiculously humid in Tas too made it feel warmer than it actually was. Very low humidity though in Vic and SA. 

But climate change? Or just natural variation in the weather? One event doesn't prove anything other than that it was warm last night. It's the trend that counts.


----------



## numbercruncher (1 January 2008)

Exactly Smurf, its the trend that counts, a few nights means little, but facts such as Vic having its hottest year on record should be enough to raise eyebrows ..... Im sure we can expect more ...


----------



## treefrog (1 January 2008)

I'll know we are serious about global warming when:

coming into summer we put the daylight saving clock *back* an hour *not forward*
If you stop and think (and I'm talking here about normal activity) before we fiddle with the clock, in the morning:
a) there is more daylight already
b) it is much much cooler for all forms of activity and life generally
c) the air is cleaner after the reduced activity avernight
in the afternoon the sun has heated everything up and there is less daylight (1.5hrs) after work than there is before (2.5hrs)
so if we went back an hour instead of forward there would be more cooler daylight and a longer period of it (3.5hrs) before work gets in the way

but I'm sure the current decission makers will have some reason for moving the clock the wrong way - its just that I haven't heard one yet


----------



## 2020hindsight (1 January 2008)

Three quotes from Prince Philip over a 20 year period ....
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Prince_Philip,_Duke_of_Edinburgh
Fair to say that he was ahead of his time with some of these quotes.. 



> Where did you get that hat? (1953)
> To his wife, the Queen, immediately after her coronation






> For conservation to be successful it is necessary to take into consideration that it is a *characteristic of man that he can only be relied upon to do anything consistently which is in his own interest.* He may have occasional fits of conscience and moral rectitude but otherwise his actions are governed by self-interest. It follows then that whatever the moral reasons for conservation *it will only be achieved by the inducement of profit or pleasure. *
> World Wildlife Fund: British National Appeal Banquet, London, (1962)






> ...man must accept responsibilities in proportion to his power and, if we are to exercise these responsibilities so that all life can continue on earth, they must have a moral and philosophical basis. *Simple self-interest, economic profit and absolute materialism are no longer enough*... It has been made perfectly clear that a concern for any part of life on this planet - human, plant or animal, wild or tame - is a concern for all life. A threat to any part of the environment is a threat to the whole environment, but we must have a basis of assessment of these threats, not so that we can establish a priority of fears, but so that we can make a positive contribution to improvement and ultimate survival.
> 
> .........
> It is an old cliche to say that the future is in the hands of the young. This is no longer true. *The quality of life to be enjoyed or the existence to be survived by our children and future generations is in our hands now.*
> The World Wildlife Fund Congress, London, (1970)




PS treefrog - some good points there 
PS (edit) but as Smurf says next post - only if people bother to get out of bed lol.


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 January 2008)

treefrog said:


> I'll know we are serious about global warming when:
> but I'm sure the current decission makers will have some reason for moving the clock the wrong way - its just that I haven't heard one yet



Modern (post-war) daylight saving in Australia was introduced in Tasmania for the 1967-68 Summer at the request of the Hydro-Electric Commission specifically as a means of reducing electricity consumption during the electricity supply emergency. Other measures included rationing, outright bans on various uses of electricity and the purchase of gas turbines and a generator ship.

If we didn't have daylight saving then it would be light at 4am!!! Not much point in that when very few people get up any earlier than 6am unless they're a shift worker etc. Also it would be dark at 8pm in mid-Summer without daylight saving and of course that means the lights on for an hour longer - avoiding that was the original reason for it.

Also I'd argue it probably does a lot of good for health - the day that daylight savings ends is the day most stop exercising in the evening and watch TV instead. Very noticeable change there.

Maybe some different issues in Queensland etc?


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 January 2008)

Record power demand in Victoria today. Peaked about 4:40pm local time at 9439 MW but it was over the previous record for quite a while.

Energy demand keeps going up, up and up. People may well be concerned, but not enough to actually switch anything off it would seem.

At the time of the peak, 7879 MW was from local generation, 1357 MW from NSW, 594 MW from Tasmania. 391 MW was being exported from Vic to SA. The price was $7600 per MWh at the time of peak demand - about 150 times the average. It went up to $9999 in SA. 

The good news: Everything worked properly and the lights stayed on. And a nice profit for those selling power into Vic or SA no matter what the source (unless they're hedged). Even better for those buying some back right now at $50.

The bad news: CO2.


----------



## Wysiwyg (10 January 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> Record power demand in Victoria today. Peaked about 4:40pm local time but it was over the previous record for quite a while.
> 
> Energy demand keeps going up, up and up. People may well be concerned, but not enough to actually switch anything off it would seem.




Computers/electronics for Christmas and air conditioning???


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 January 2008)

no question in my mind ...

"I don't know why people are concerned about global warming !
why don't they just turn their air conditioners up??! " 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/10/2136000.htm?section=justin



> Record power use in Vic heatwave
> Posted 5 hours 51 minutes ago
> Updated 5 hours 24 minutes ago
> 
> ...



oh great reserve - no problem then !! 

Meanwhile fires out of control in Ballarat.  



> Fire authorities are predicting tomorrow's hot weather will bring the worst fire conditions so far this summer.
> 
> Firefighters were today fighting a grass fire near Portland in Victoria's far south west, that has burnt about 100 hectares.
> 
> ...


----------



## wayneL (10 January 2008)

I'm beginning to think Jeremy Clarkson is right:



			
				Motormouth said:
			
		

> And anyway, even if every nation meets its obligations under the Kyoto agreement, the Earth won’t be saved. In fact, the heat expected in 2020 would arrive in 2026. So we ruin our lives to buy just six more years.
> 
> The fact is this. Global warming’s coming, so you can don your King Canute hat and stand on the beach waving your Toyota Prius at the advancing heatwave, but it won’t make a ha’p’orth of difference.



Eat, drink and burn fossil fuel, for tomorrow we die.


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 January 2008)

wayneL said:


> I'm beginning to think Jeremy Clarkson is right:
> 
> 
> Eat, drink and burn fossil fuel, for tomorrow we die.





they say a picture tells a thousand words ... 

... :evilburn: .......:bad: ......  :nosympath.........:viking:........


----------



## wayneL (10 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> they say a picture tells a thousand words ...
> 
> ... :evilburn: .......:bad: ......  :nosympath.........:viking:........




The truth is that my earlier facetiousness is spot on. There is no point anybody doing anything until the leaders lead instead of spreading messages, least of all me.

I'm going out to get my Range Rover on the weekend... and I'm driving to the pub. Whats the point of living like an 18th century subsistence farmer as the rest of the world carries on regardless... including the "messengers".


----------



## Wysiwyg (10 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> they say a picture tells a thousand words ...
> 
> ... :evilburn: .......:bad: ......  :nosympath.........:viking:........




Too many humans you reckon 2020???
I`ll go and top me self to slow the wheel.


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 January 2008)

If I didn't know you better Wayne - I'd have assumed you thought that global warming was serious after all


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 January 2008)

Smurf - I don't want to say this too  loud - but Sydney has been quite temperate (given mid summer)   - I'd hate to be in Melbourne 40 odd degrees etc. 

The tennis (Aust Open) coming up and all . poor bugas.


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 January 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> Too many humans you reckon 2020???
> I`ll go and top me self to slow the wheel.




wys - yep  - 

you know that quote by Prince Phillip 
he was heckled bigtime over it - but it's spot on ( not that it's what I would concentrate on - I'd prefer to change the emphasis on fossil fuels - dependence on airflights etc) 

*"If I were reincarnated, I would wish to be returned to Earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels"*.
Prince Phillip quote 

Then again he has a few from left field  ( try way over the fence in fact) ..  
"I don't think a prostitute is more moral than a wife, but they are doing the same thing ! " 

PS I mean If Aus cut CO2e from 26 to under 10 (like nuclear Lithuania) or under 1 (like most of Africa) then problem would be vastly improved...  

it would give the world a chance to come out the other side !

As it is we are heading into a cauldron like a moth to a lamp


----------



## Wysiwyg (11 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> wys - yep  -
> 
> you know that quote by Prince Phillip
> he was heckled bigtime over it - but it's spot on ( not that it's what I would concentrate on - I'd prefer to change the emphasis on fossil fuels - dependence on airflights etc)
> ...




A virus is always a real chance but not from a reincarnated silver spooner.(reincarnation is for the faithies imo)You`re right 2020, we should all do our bit to reduce consumption.And doing it.


----------



## wayneL (11 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> If I didn't know you better Wayne - I'd have assumed you thought that global warming was serious after all




Still skeptical, but as stated before, I am hugely concerned about general pollution. Same difference in practice.


----------



## numbercruncher (11 January 2008)

Speaking of pollution, I just read China has got serious on plastic bags, banned them under a certain thickness and Australia looks set to follow suit.

Excellent news, unless your a plastic bag maker I guess ! 

Not only are they an Eyesore and waste of landfill but one of the many problems is that these bags "float" underwater and look like Jellyfish to Turtles who then choke on them.

I think this is a great example of Government legislation making a difference, Leave it up to personal choice, the results can be seen with how many/few bring your own bags shoppers, but ban them, problem solved.


----------



## ithatheekret (11 January 2008)

numbercruncher said:


> I think this is a great example of Government legislation making a difference, Leave it up to personal choice, the results can be seen with how many/few bring your own bags shoppers, but ban them, problem solved.





I agree about the plastic bags , but some alternatives are just as bad . 

I can remember having to pile up boxes full of groceries , lug them out to the car find a space for them , get home and find room in the bin for the boxes.

Whilst I don't think I'll see trees lopped down to meet the carry needs in boxes , emerging countries aren't shy about pulping for paper bags , as stated in one of the news articles today .

I know we have bio plastics etc. , but it's just as easy now to buy half a dozen permanent carry bags , you know those greens ones , or the orange ones c/- whomever , ours was c/- our last departing sitting member , ..... thanks Big Bird ( Fawcett ) , one less dead turtle to wash up on some shore .


----------



## numbercruncher (11 January 2008)

Even some of these Bio plastics can take 1000 years to break down I understand.

I think everyone with an Enviromental conscience would be using the reusable bags by now, they even make Insulated ones for the frozens , be good to force the other 70pc of people who dont use them though! - Perhaps an Investment opportunity lays in wait, wonder who makes them ?





" Save the Turtles "


----------



## ithatheekret (11 January 2008)

numbercruncher said:


> Perhaps an Investment opportunity lays in wait, wonder who makes them ?





That's a tough one NC , umm ahhh ummm ..... now who makes everything . 

Well there's always China . 

I think the US makes them too , as well as local disadvantaged industries , that area is a good ethics buying thing for me .... ie., Bedford Industries etc.


anyway  ........ SAVE THE TURTLES


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 January 2008)

ithatheekret said:


> I agree about the plastic bags , but some alternatives are just as bad .
> 
> emerging countries aren't shy about pulping for paper bags , as stated in one of the news articles today .
> 
> I know we have bio plastics etc. , but it's just as easy now to buy half a dozen permanent carry bags , you know those greens ones , or the orange ones c/- whomever , ours was c/- our last departing sitting member , ..... thanks Big Bird ( Fawcett ) , one less dead turtle to wash up on some shore .



itha, as you say, probably see a swing to (bio-plastic) biodegradable in future.  On a side issue, certainly easer to pick up dog cables with some sort of platic than with a cardboard box.   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioplastic

whatever you do !!! - don't tell those he-man people who are starting to use the green permanent carry bags that they are coloured green because it's environmentally the right thing to do - and horror of horror they are actually helping the "treehuggers" by using them!.    You have to smile don't you. 

As Kermit the frog might have said...

Some are born green, some achieve green, and some have green thrust upon them. 

nc - perhaps a burst of uv light would assist in breaking them down (?) - or is that just the petrochemical based ones?

glad wrap - sheesh - miles used in industry these days - pallets are typically wrapped in about 50 m of the stuff each ( x 500 wide)


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 January 2008)

Thing about global warming being expressed in so many reports recently is the exponential increase we are gonna experience.   (eg the icecaps melt, the white reflective areas decrease, the blue heat-absorting areas increase, the graph not only continues up, but bends up.!)  

Bit like a bun in the oven, and as it rises, it presses on a switch that turns the thermostat up.  

No that's a lousy comparison - because the bun turns black and stops rising - turns to ash and starts falling in fact 

(maybe it is a good comparison after all) 

but you get the ghist. 

:topic
black holes are mean cosmic cannibals, eating up prodigal suns,
light rays refuse to escape from their surface, much like my burnt raisin buns,
Einstein explained it quite simply, teaspoonfuls weigh in the tons,
denser than rockcakes! can you imagine it! crushed by a handful of crumbs.


----------



## cordelia (11 January 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> A virus is always a real chance but not from a reincarnated silver spooner.(reincarnation is for the faithies imo)You`re right 2020, we should all do our bit to reduce consumption.And doing it.




Prince philip wasn't exactly a "silver spooner" read up on his childhood...you might be surprised...GW is real...did anyone see that program on Catalyst about 12 months ago....

http://www.abc.net.au/science/crude/


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 January 2008)

Apparently in Germany they have a project doing the 100% renewable thing (though only on a small scale) that I've been on about.

Link multiple intermittent power sources, use hydro for firm capacity and storage and the end result is no fossil fuels or nuclear to get 100% renewable electricity baselaod, intermediate and peak load.

Now all that needs to happen is a massive scale up and run this as the grid, instead of instead of the grid as a small system.

Long term, we will see either: 
* Massive buildups of new electric infrastructure. 
* A limited buildup + tear down of things we can't power. 
* Or our energy hungry society comes crashing down.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 January 2008)

Smurf - 
Not everyone has mountains like Tassie lol

I mean they'd have trouble using hydro in Holland m8 - 
Although I suppose they could pipe the sea through the dykes with a turbine and generator in there somewhere 

but what to do with the bludy salty water? lol

The answer? 
BAN AIR CONDITIONERS !! 
Let the message sink in .


----------



## --B-- (14 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> PS I mean If Aus cut CO2e from 26 to under 10 (like nuclear Lithuania)




do you support a move to full nuclear energy 2020?

unfortunately many pushing the AGE barrow refuse to consider this as a reliable and safe and clean energy source.



> or under 1 (like most of Africa) then problem would be vastly improved...



oh dear... are you seriously suggesting Africa is a shining example the world should follow? 

back to brush fires hey?

one of the most hilarious suggesting ive heard...


----------



## --B-- (14 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Thing about global warming being expressed in so many reports recently is the exponential increase we are gonna experience.   (eg the icecaps melt, the white reflective areas decrease, the blue heat-absorting areas increase, the graph not only continues up, but bends up.!)




yep. its interesting what computer models can spit out when they are modeled to spit out the results you want.


----------



## explod (14 January 2008)

--B-- said:


> yep. its interesting what computer models can spit out when they are modeled to spit out the results you want.




Yep, it is also interesting that many believe the happenings are in the future from computer modelling.

The exponential melting of the ice caps and the reduction of reflective white ice sheets is happening now and the curve getting steeper is now.

In fact we should be all setting up road blocks to stop the traffic now.  Though congestion has just about done it.   Just need to get everyone to turn the engines off.

Think I am a crack pot, absolutely and we need heeps of them


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 January 2008)

--B-- said:


> 1. do you support a move to full nuclear energy 2020?
> 
> 2. ... Africa is a shining example ....?   one of the most hilarious suggesting ive heard...




1. as I've said many times - yes
2. this has gone over your head -B-

presumably you would also find this webside hilarious 
http://www.worldvision.com.au/childsponsorship/ChildSearch.aspx

As for computer models 
How do you think you get your weather forecast each day ? - sheesh


----------



## --B-- (14 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> 1. as I've said many times - yes




good to hear.



> 2. this has gone over your head -B-




then please elaborate as to how and why you think we should aim for similar co2 emissions as africa?



> presumably you would also find this webside hilarious
> http://www.worldvision.com.au/childsponsorship/ChildSearch.aspx




wow. relevance?


> As for computer models
> How do you think you get your weather forecast each day ? - sheesh




we understand the weather far more than we understand climate 2020.


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 January 2008)

PS -B- , if you think reading about the plight of Africa is hilarious, 
have to say that .. 
 reading your posts that are written in that vein is starting to make me feel nauseous


----------



## --B-- (14 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> PS -B- , if you think reading about the plight of Africa is hilarious,
> have to say that ..
> reading your posts that are written in that vein is starting to make me feel nauseous




PS 2020: i have never said the plight of africa is hilarious, i was clearly stating that it was your suggestion that africa is an example we should follow.

do you think having extremely low co2 emissions due to having extreme levels of poverty is a good thing 2020?


----------



## explod (14 January 2008)

--B-- said:


> PS 2020: i have never said the plight of africa is hilarious, i was clearly stating that it was your suggestion that africa is an example we should follow.
> 
> do you think having extremely low co2 emissions due to having extreme levels of poverty is a good thing 2020?




Wont matter about the poverty when we all burn up.  I'm for the poverty if that is what it is going to take to fix things.   Africa from since the trees were cut down have mostly been on the edge of poverty.

We need to live among the trees again.


----------



## --B-- (14 January 2008)

explod said:


> Wont matter about the poverty when we all burn up.  I'm for the poverty if that is what it is going to take to fix things.   Africa from since the trees were cut down have mostly been on the edge of poverty.
> 
> We need to live among the trees again.




oh sure.. better do it 'just in case' to huh? insurance and all that?


----------



## explod (14 January 2008)

--B-- said:


> oh sure.. better do it 'just in case' to huh? insurance and all that?




Just in case???   I am not a two bob each way type.  Global warming is here.  Last year 07 was the hottes and driest since records were kept.  Not saying it has not happened before but at this accelerated level never.

Why do you think wheat, corn. soybeans are at record prices?    Shortage of supply due to increasing world drought.   Ever increasing population, address the issues pal.   We need to get our heads out of the sand by first realising we have a problem and 2 by then collectively looking at what we can do about it.    Waiting without action will see us hit the poverty level and I do not want that any more than you do.


----------



## --B-- (14 January 2008)

explod said:


> Just in case???   I am not a two bob each way type.  Global warming is here.  Last year 07 was the hottes and driest since records were kept.




really? then you should have no problem posting a source to backup this claim?



> Why do you think wheat, corn. soybeans are at record prices?    Shortage of supply due to increasing world drought.




increasing world drought? source please.



> Ever increasing population, address the issues pal.   We need to get our heads out of the sand by first realising we have a problem and 2 by then collectively looking at what we can do about it.    Waiting without action will see us hit the poverty level and I do not want that any more than you do.




ever increasing population? i thought this was a thread about global warming?


----------



## explod (14 January 2008)

--B-- said:


> really? then you should have no problem posting a source to backup this claim?
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Been there done that,  regardless of source you will not believe same,

As in Cool Hand Luke  ..."some people ya just cant reach"


Anecdotal but actual experience.  As a boy 55years ago on my Dad's farm our average rainfall was 30 inches every year.   Always had tadpoles to take to school.  Kids there now have never seen a frog.   Just west of Hawkesdale which is just north of Warrnambool in Victoria.

Used to shear sheep in Queensland in the 60s, transported them all out early 70's and have never been returned.


----------



## --B-- (14 January 2008)

explod said:


> Been there done that,  regardless of source you will not believe same,
> 
> As in Cool Hand Luke  ..."some people ya just cant reach"




oh please. so you have no source? i would sincerely like to see the source of your claim?

it wasnt an unbacked claim was it?



> Anecdotal but actual experience.  As a boy 55years ago on my Dad's farm our average rainfall was 30 inches every year.   Always had tadpoles to take to school.  Kids there now have never seen a from.   Just west of Hawkesdale which is just north of Warrnambool in Victoria.
> 
> Used to shear sheep in Queensland in the 60s, transported them all out early 70's and have never been returned.




excuse me if i dont consider your anecdotal evidence of a couple of experiences in Australia as evidence of "increasing world drought"

if you wish to make such wild claims you can expect to be asked for evidence. having zero evidence doesn't exactly add weight to your arguments re: global warming either.


----------



## Happy (14 January 2008)

explod said:


> Anecdotal but actual experience.  As a boy 55years ago on my Dad's farm our average rainfall was 30 inches every year.   Always had tadpoles to take to school.  Kids there now have never seen a frog.   Just west of Hawkesdale which is just north of Warrnambool in Victoria.
> 
> Used to shear sheep in Queensland in the 60s, transported them all out early 70's and have never been returned.




Sahara desert in Africa used to be jungle a while ago and it became desert before we developed as intelligent species.

Having said that I am for reduction of global population and I would prefer it done one child policy way rather than another W.W. style.

Baby bonus is stupid when in Africa 1 child dies every 20 seconds of hunger.

Give baby bonus money there and on contraceptives rather than food.


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 January 2008)

Summary according to IPCC...

Obviously some here know better. 

http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/speeches.htm
http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/speeches/rajendra-pachauri-september-2007.pdf



> OPENING SESSION – 24 September 07
> Mr. Rajendra Pachauri
> Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
> Mr. Secretary General, President of the General Assembly, distinguished leaders of member states, ladies and gentlemen, I speak to you with a great sense of privilege and honor and at the outset I would like to salute the Secretary General for having organized this remarkable gathering of world leaders on an issue that all of us are deeply concerned about.
> ...


----------



## --B-- (14 January 2008)

hey 2020, should i repost the report by the IPCC reviewer who criticises the IPCC for ignoring his concerns regarding the validity of their data and procedures?


----------



## --B-- (14 January 2008)

found this interesting piece and thought it relevant not only to further demonstrate the fact that a consensus does not exists as some claim but also to provide a bit of an answer to the easlier claim that we can predict weather so (supposedly) we can predict climate too..



> Climate statistician *Dr. William M. Briggs*, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review. Briggs, a visiting mathematics professor at Central Michigan University and a Biostatistician at New York Methodist Hospital, has a new paper coming out in the peer-reviewed Journal of Climate which finds that hurricanes have not increased number or intensity in the North Atlantic. Briggs, who has authored numerous articles in meteorological and climatological journals, has also authored another study looking on tropical cyclones around the globe, and finds that they have not increased in number or intensity either. Briggs expressed skepticism about man-made global warming fears in 2007. "There is a lot of uncertainly among scientists about what's going on with the climate," Briggs wrote to EPW on December 28, 2007. "Most scientists just don't want the publicity one way or another. Generally, publicity is not good for one's academic career. Only, after reading [UN IPCC chairman] Pachauri's asinine comment [comparing scientists skeptical of man-made climate fears to] Flat Earthers, it's hard to remain quiet," Briggs explained. "It is well known that weather forecasts, out to, say, four to five days, have skill; that is, they can beat just guessing the average. Forecasts with lead times greater than this have decreasing to no skill," Briggs wrote. "The skill of climate forecasts---global climate models---upon which the vast majority of global warming science is based are not well investigated, but what is known is that these models do not do a good job at reproducing past, known climates, nor at predicting future climates. The error associated with climate predictions is also much larger than that usually ascribed to them; meaning, of course, that people are far too sure of themselves and their models," he concluded.


----------



## long$$ (14 January 2008)

There is consensus in the scientific community including most importantly the climatologists:

The scientific consensus is clearly expressed in the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Created in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environmental Programme, IPCC's purpose is to evaluate the state of climate science as a basis for informed policy action, primarily on the basis of peer-reviewed and published scientific literature (3). In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].

For more, see http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 January 2008)

-B- 
As I recall you challenged that things are getting hotter - no doubt you claim Urban Heat Islands .. and hence unreliable data. 

Apart from the fact that I would still argue "EVEN IF the IPCC have overestimated temp effects, then IN ANY CASE we should still be aiming for cleaner energy";  ...   I notice that Wiki (possibly influenced by IPCC) claim that there "are no known scientific peer-reviewed papers holding the view" that much of the temp increase is due to increase in urbanisation and siting of measurement stations. 


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


> Another view, often held by skeptics of global warming, is that much of the temperature increase seen in land based thermometers could be due to an increase in urbanisation and the siting of measurement stations in urban areas [4][5]. *However, these views are mainly presented in "popular literature" and there are no known scientific peer-reviewed papers holding this view*.[15]
> 
> The Fourth Assessment Report from the IPCC (2007: p.244) says the following.
> 
> Studies that have looked at hemispheric and global scales conclude that any urban-related trend is an order of magnitude smaller than decadal and longer time-scale trends evident in the series (e.g., Jones et al., 1990; Peterson et al., 1999). This result could partly be attributed to the omission from the gridded data set of a small number of sites (<1%) with clear urban-related warming trends. In a worldwide set of about 270 stations, Parker (2004, 2006) noted that warming trends in night minimum temperatures over the period 1950 to 2000 were not enhanced on calm nights, which would be the time most likely to be affected by urban warming. Thus, the global land warming trend discussed is very unlikely to be influenced significantly by increasing urbanisation (Parker, 2006).


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Smurf -
> Not everyone has mountains like Tassie lol
> 
> I mean they'd have trouble using hydro in Holland m8 -
> ...



I'm thinking in the Australian context mostly. Plenty of suitable pumped storage sites in NSW, Vic and Tas. Qld has quite a bit of potential too.

SA is the only state where it would be impractical to build anything, at least using fresh water, but then SA is already connected to Vic and can and can meet up to about 20% of its extreme peak with imports. Given the geothermal potential there and that transmission lines can be duplicated without too much difficulty, that's not a real problem.

WA and NT are a bit harder in the whole energy question. But they aren't where most of our power demand is.

As for the air-conditioners, my first question is "why?". What is this supposed to achieve? A reduction in Summer peak demand sure, but Winter peak would go up and isn't that much lower than Summer peak across the interconnected states (Qld, NSW/ACT, Vic, Tas, SA) anyway. Total peak wouldn't go down, it would just shift to a different season. Total energy generated would rise especially in NSW and Tas, to the point of the latter needing a significant new power station, so it's not clear that it would do much for greenhouse gas emissions either.

IMO air-conditioning along with lighting is simply a very visible target. Air-conditioning because of the Summer peak demand and lighting because it's what most people naturally associate with electricity. In the household sense, neither is a major contributor to total emissions. Likewise in industry it's pretty minor too. Only in offices, shopping centres etc are they are large component of total consumption.

If we're going to ban anything then appliances on standby, computers running overnight in offices, water coolers (most ridiculous machine ever invented IMO), household coffee machines that stay hot 24/7 and the like are far more blatant energy wasters than a properly used air-conditioner. The former sit there 24/7 chruning out emissions to achieve basically nothing. Air-conditioning at least does something reasonably useful.

In a cold climate, installing an air-conditioner is the single most effective thing the householder can do to cut their emissions. No amount of catching buses to work, flouro lights and so on will match the energy savings achieved by simply changing the heater. They're a net positive certainly in Vic and Tas. Probably about neutral in SA and NSW. They would add to overall emissions in Qld and NT though. I don't know enough about the WA climate to really comment for there but I suspect it would be roughly neutral.


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 January 2008)

--B-- said:


> oh please. so you have no source? i would sincerely like to see the source of your claim?
> 
> it wasnt an unbacked claim was it?
> 
> ...



The essentially complete disappearance of high rainfall events and the subsequent 70% or so reduction in water runoff in SW WA is somewhat more convincing however given that it's a decades old trend now.

The "rain hole" in Tasmania during Autumn is another one which dates from about the same time and has the same worsening trend both in intensity and duration.

And the impacts are starting to mount in terms of cost. There's a $1 billion or so water proposal to pipe water to smaller towns in Tas that is, in practice, the bill for climate change thus far as what were once adequate local catchments have all but dried up. And that's not including the $100 million a year Hydro's throwing at it. And in WA all those bores supplying Perth plus the desal plant are all ultimately a consequence of the declining rainfall - not sure of the cost but it was $$$ in total. 

Given that they date back over 30 years since the trend started, it's past time that the WA and Tas situations can be considered temporary. Even a casual look at the data reveals a worsening trend that shows no sign of reversal.

Both the WA and Tas situations show a trend that started exactly at the same time global temperatures started their rise in the mid-1970's. Coincidence perhaps, but they are impacts of a changing climate no matter what the cause.


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 January 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> 1. Dams . I'm thinking in the Australian context mostly. Plenty of suitable pumped storage sites in NSW, Vic and Tas. Qld has quite a bit of potential too.
> 
> 2. As for the air-conditioners, my first question is "why?". What is this supposed to achieve? A reduction in Summer peak demand sure, but Winter peak would go up
> 
> ...



smurf 
1. Dams - well lol - here's an aerial view of Traveston - typical depth 1.5m - over 29 sq km of beautiful agricultural land   Useless for hydro. (especially compared to some of those hydro dams you have down in Tas.)   Funnily enough I worked for a while in a hydro station in PNG - Rouna Falls - several hundred feet underground. 

2. and 5. When you say aircons more efficient (that electric heaters I assume), You are assuming that we use something to warm us - why not a woollen jumper or two 

Why in summer? -  I just like the idea that you'd get a friendly reminder that the world is cooking due to wasteful use of energy.  (and it's serious).

3. Lights in city offices overnight - sheesh  ridiculous. 
Shopping centres aircons - you almost catch pneumonia on a hot day. 

4. Coffee machines permanently hot - lol - funny thing , maybe Wayne has got me thinking - but these days I boil the jug with "just enough" water


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 January 2008)

http://www.greenhouse.nsw.gov.au/what_is_climate_change/global_trends

The above links up with New Scientist, which in turn has a series of articles called "CLIMATE MYTHS" : 26 myths about GW :-



> There is also a guide to assessing the evidence. In the articles we've included lots of links to primary research and major reports for those who want to follow through to the original sources.
> 
> Can we trust the science?
> • Chaotic systems are not predictable
> ...




Finally a comparison with the use of comuters for trading 

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11649


> Most modellers accept that despite constant improvements over more than half a century, there are problems. They acknowledge, for instance, that one of the largest uncertainties in their models is how clouds will respond to climate change. Their predictions, which they prefer to call scenarios, usually come with generous error bars. In an effort to be more rigorous, the most recent report of the IPCC has quantified degrees of doubt, defining terms like “likely” and “very likely” in terms of percentage probability.
> 
> Indeed, one recent study suggests that the feedbacks in climate systems means climate models will never be able to tell us exactly how much warming to expect. However, there is no doubt that there will be warming.
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 January 2008)

Mind you, one of those "New Scientist"  26 myths is the theory of Europe going into iceage - although they concede that the slowing of the Gulf Stream (probable) will prevent Europe from getting as hot as it otherwise would.  

Then you think to yourself - well, Europe have less personally to lose than Aus, yet they are prepared to "try harder" ( Kyoto targets etc) 

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11838

Here are the links to the rest of those 26 articles:-
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 January 2008)

One for you Wayne... on water vapour. 

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11652



> A simplified summary is that about 50% of the greenhouse effect is due to water vapour, 25% due to clouds, 20% to CO2, with other gases accounting for the remainder.
> 
> Water cycle
> *So why aren't climate scientists a lot more worried about water vapour than about CO2? The answer has to do with how long greenhouse gases persist in the atmosphere. For water, the average is just a few days. *
> ...


----------



## wayneL (15 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> One for you Wayne... on water vapour.
> 
> http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11652



I'm not a physicist, but that argument seems like nonsense. Why would the persistence of individual molecules matter a jot. I would have thought the consistency of the overall level of the gas would matter.


----------



## wayneL (15 January 2008)

OMG! Dissent!

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming073107m.htm

http://www.dailytech.com/2007+Hurricane+Season+Wheres+the+Beef/article8253.htm

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....Store_id=56dd129d-e40a-4bad-abd9-68c808e8809e


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 January 2008)

Incidentally, one of those articles is just about hurricanes (but assumes global warming) ... 
http://www.dailytech.com/2007+Hurricane+Season+Wheres+the+Beef/article8253.htm

Similarly, as I mentioned, it's a mild summer in Sydney this year as well - trouble is it's a string of scorchers in Melb & Adelaide. and the trend worldwide is increasing. 



> Another milder-than-normal season takes shape
> 
> During the active 2005 hurricane season, the usual doom-and-gloom prophets blamed the storms on global warming. "Nature's wrath," we were told, "hath been unleashed". Aided by a complaisant media, we were told this was our wakeup call, come to punish us for our SUV-driving ways.
> 
> ...



.

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11641

There is a link there an example of a forcing function (a wedge) imposed on a chaotic system (weather).   They point out (the obvious) - as I'm sure we're all aware, that "one swallow does not a summer make".

http://www.clivar.org/science/magnets.php


> These animations [courtesy of Rob Hine (ECMWF)] illustrate a number of climate issues which have caused conceptual difficulties from time to time:
> 
> Even though climate is chaotic, with weather states impossible to predict in detail more than a few days ahead, there is a predictable impact of anthropogenic forcing on the probability of occurrence of the naturally-occurring climatic regimes. This lies at the heart of the CLIVAR perspective on climate change - how anthropogenic forcing will affect the natural modes of climate variability.
> 
> ...




On the definition of climate :-
Climate defined as average of last 30 years (WMA) - although there is obviously statistical conclusions and probabilities if , for instance, in any decade, you get a string of hot years for instance. 
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11641


> Climate, however, is the bigger picture of a region's weather: the average, *over 30 years (according to the World Meteorological Association's definition),* of the weather pattern in a region. While weather changes fast on human timescales, climate changes fairly slowly. Getting reasonably accurate predictions is a matter of choosing the right timescale: *days in the case of weather, decades in the case of climate*.




But in the end, IPCC talk high probabilities, etc (including 90 and 95% confidence).  We have to take the alarming melting of polar cap seriously, (imo) and try to steer things back.   It's not as if the world has ever seen this much CO2 before.  We are heading into unchartered waters - and the planet is not the place to conduct unprecedented experiments. 

And as you have pointed out to me many times, pollution of all types is capable of being reduced with anthropogenic effort.

(PS as for one year being "mild" compared to "the trend" the solar cycle (11 year, Galileo) is at a low at the moment - let's check out the predictions in 2012 when it peaks again shall we)


----------



## numbercruncher (15 January 2008)

> *Antarctica's ice melting faster*
> 
> Leigh Dayton, Science writer | January 15, 2008
> 
> ...




http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23053212-11949,00.html


----------



## wayneL (15 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> But in the end, IPCC talk high probabilities, etc (including 90 and 95% confidence).  We have to take the alarming melting of polar cap seriously, (imo) and try to steer things back.   It's not as if the world has ever seen this much CO2 before.  We are heading into unchartered waters - and the planet is not the place to conduct unprecedented experiments.
> 
> And as you have pointed out to me many times, pollution of all types is capable of being reduced with anthropogenic effort.
> 
> (PS as for one year being "mild" compared to "the trend" the solar cycle (11 year, Galileo) is at a low at the moment - let's check out the predictions in 2012 when it peaks again shall we)




http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/12442121.html

There is much cherrypicking of weather events as the above link shows.  

My view that concentration on AGW is aiming for a 1 pointer instead of a six pointer (in AFL parlance). Folks ignore 99% of the problem by focusing on so called greenhouse gases (incorrectly in view... I am now more convinced than ever). This is largely a function of "social proof"; it is now cool to fret over GW... while doing zip about it.

Meanwhile, global pollution continues unabated.


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 January 2008)

wayneL said:


> it is now cool to fret over GW... while doing zip about it.
> 
> Meanwhile, global pollution continues unabated.



The only people (among the first world) doing zip about it are the yanks (with exception of the governator of CA) - at least the other countries are admitting there's a problem looming.  

ok 95% chance of a problem ( same thing if you think about it - as a responsible manager)


----------



## wayneL (15 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> The only people (among the first world) doing zip about it are the yanks (with exception of the governator of CA) - at least the other countries are admitting there's a problem looming.
> 
> ok 95% chance of a problem ( same thing if you think about it - as a responsible manager)



*IF* AGW is real, the so called "measures" the rest of the world are employing is "fiddling while Rome burns", allegorically penny wise and pound foolish... futile.


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 January 2008)

wayneL said:


> *IF* AGW is real, the so called "measures" the rest of the world are employing is "fiddling while Rome burns", allegorically penny wise and pound foolish... futile.



Bit hard to put Rome's fire out (need for action against any and ALL pollution)  when people (eg Johnny Howard , who took 10 years to come around to the need for action against GW) keep sabotaging the fire engine, burying it with red herrings. (imo)

Where there's bureaucratic smokescreens, there's fire.


----------



## aleckara (15 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> THanks Smurf..
> 
> 1. liberty, equality, fraternity, and get-it-through-your-thick-head-tax-on-power-and-growth-mentality
> 
> ...






Electric cars are most likely going to run on two commodities and they aren't zinc, copper, gold for the fuel anyway.

They are lithium and platinum. I personally think battery tech has overtaken fuel cells with A123, Toshiba and others inventing things such as the battery that can charge at 5 minutes, and that can put out enough power to make a supercar.

Electric cars that can go the distance are possible. Hydrogen has its pitfalls.

So while I think Lithium is the commodity of the future for batteries i have placed my bets on platinum as well. In effect I have invested companies such as (ADY) for lithium and a platinum one (PLA) to get exposure to both these sectors.


----------



## numbercruncher (15 January 2008)

I think we are right on the cusp of Electric cars going mainstream, just a few short years.

Ever checked out Tesla Motors - backed by some of the co-founders of Google, you can buy their electric sports cars now (sold out of all 2008s they made) for about 100k - does 0 to 100klm in under 4secs , 2cents per mile running costs.

Alot more companies really close to production.


Everyone is so bullish on Oil prices, in the medium term I think theyll come under pressure, and certainly not the gains weve seen of the past.


----------



## Rafa (15 January 2008)

electric cars will do didly squat if the electricity is generated by coal  c'mon fella's... we're clever than this... the problem can be fixed only by a whole scale change in the way we produce electricity...

that pretty much means geothermal, wave motion, hydro, plus solar / wind for those who have it... and maybe nuclear for those who don't have access to renewable sources.

this problem is two fold
1. Technological capability
2. overcoming vested interests.

We can also overcome this by a global recession / depression... but thats another story.


----------



## wayneL (15 January 2008)

wayneL said:


> My view that concentration on AGW is aiming for a 1 pointer instead of a six pointer (in AFL parlance). Folks ignore 99% of the problem by focusing on so called greenhouse gases (incorrectly in view... I am now more convinced than ever). This is largely a function of "social proof"; it is now cool to fret over GW... while doing zip about it.
> 
> Meanwhile, global pollution continues unabated.



FYI

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...WAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/opinion/2008/01/15/do1501.xml


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 January 2008)

Rafa said:


> electric cars will do didly squat if the electricity is generated by coal  c'mon fella's... we're clever than this... the problem can be fixed only by a whole scale change in the way we produce electricity...
> 
> that pretty much means geothermal, wave motion, hydro, plus solar / wind for those who have it... and maybe nuclear for those who don't have access to renewable sources.
> 
> ...



Hit the nail on the head there. Geothermal, wave, solar and wind to provide most of the actual energy. Hydro for the storage, firm generating capacity it provides and ability to rapidly alter output to match the supply from all sources with demand.

Once you have clean electricity, then you have a very easy means of shifting most things to clean energy. 

A modest size factory (for example, a bakery or milk processing plant) isn't likely to invest in their own energy production. But if all they have to do is switch everything over to grid electricity and let the utility take care of the rest then it's easy and they're far more likely to do it.

I won't name who for confidentiality reasons, but I'll give an example. There's a nationally known name that operates a factory in Tas with 3 boilers. The electric one was the original source of process heat. Then came the 1967 power crisis so the oil-fired one was built. Then came the rain and oil price rises in the 70's so they went back to electric. Then with the second oil price spike and the end of dam construction in sight they built the coal-fired one in the 1980's. 

Now here's the point. It makes NO difference whatsoever to the production process which boiler is running. Most of the workers wouldn't even realise when they switched over. It's steam whether it's from coal, oil or electricity. If we got back to 100% renewable electricity then it would be absolutely simple to get rid of the coal and oil in that factory. Same with anyone else using process heat in most applications.

Another one I know of is in the food manufacturing business. Their ovens were diesel fired until the recent emergence of a modest gas industry in Tas over the past 5 years. Now they're cooking with gas instead of diesel. And their customers wouldn't know anything changed. Another food processor made a change from imported (Vic) brown coal to gas and again there's no difference in the end product.

If you go to a hotel and take a shower, you generally wouldn't know if the water was heated by electricity, gas, oil or whatever. It's hot water. Just as you don't know how the shopping centre of public swimming pool is heated. Odds are you don't know whether your bread was baked in an electric or gas oven either. Anything involving heat, which is the dominant non-tranport energy use, is very easy to shift to another fuel.

Hence my being keen on getting to a 100% clean electricity supply. Do that and then we can get rid of a lot of other emissions too - basically everything except a few industrial processes and non-rail transport. But even with transport we can shift some of it to electricity. Electric car technology is reaching the point of being a "here and now" thing. And of course we ran electric buses 50 years ago in urban areas - we can do it if we have to.


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 January 2008)

wayneL said:


> FYI
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/...WAVCBQ0IV0?xml=/opinion/2008/01/15/do1501.xml



wayne - hell, that is one brilliant article - thanks.



> Further along the line, I went to a landfill site, those great muddy canyons of toxic waste. Looking around, I saw that most of the stuff was uneaten food in garish packaging. Once it was buried under the soil, attempts would be made to leach off the harmful emissions, but it was still there, thousands of tons of pointless waste, our selfish legacy to future generations living on a coughing planet






> For some reason, there is no pride any longer in making do. Those who object to needless waste are considered tree-huggers, when, in fact, they are simply trying to be ethical in a way that comes naturally to people in other countries.




another example of waste (although not about food) .. of which I am guilty  - and felt so at the time.  
you buy a calendar it costs $5. 
So when the Sun-Herald offered "free 2008 calendar" with each paper - $1.80 whatever - I bought three of them. (including copy for the mother-in-law,  lol)

I mean I NEVER buy newspapers because of the bludy ridiculous amount of waste paper - (and why bother when you can get it on the internet anyway) -  and here I am stuck with 3 useless papers - sheesh.


----------



## numbercruncher (15 January 2008)

GM have recently gone into a deal to produce biofuel ethanol from household and Industrial waste and reckon it could halve the cost of fuel .... big step in the right direction!



> DETROIT, Michigan (AFP) — General Motors Corp. is planning on making biofuel with garbage at a cost of less than a dollar a gallon, the company's chief has said.
> 
> The US automaker has entered into a partnership with Illinois-based Coskata Inc. which has developed a way to make ethanol from practically any renewable source, including old tires and plant waste.




http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iH9YAIzz62utMFZLeHaG_Fn9PuEg


----------



## Julia (15 January 2008)

Now being proposed to ban plastic shopping bags.  So instead people will buy heavier plastic bags to line kitchen bins.
What about all the plastic bottles as a result of the current fad where no one can walk around without clutching a bottle of water.  Did everyone die of dehydration before we had the privilege of paying for bottles of ordinary water?
Then there's all the other plastic packaging.  Seems like a disproportionate amount of attention to the shopping bags.


----------



## numbercruncher (15 January 2008)

They have to start somewhere plastic shopping bags is a valid target.

I think they really need to "popularise" doing the right thing, get all the famous folks on board, movie stars etc, once they go green the sheeples follow!


----------



## Wysiwyg (16 January 2008)

numbercruncher said:


> They have to start somewhere plastic shopping bags is a valid target.
> 
> I think they really need to "popularise" doing the right thing, get all the famous folks on board, movie stars etc, once they go green the sheeples follow!





I think "they" is half the problem.


----------



## numbercruncher (16 January 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> I think "they" is half the problem.





True and valid point ! But lets hope " they " can be half the solution as well and us sheeples the other half !


----------



## wayneL (16 January 2008)

Found next door at RC:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002

Don't fight, adapt

We should give up futile attempts to combat climate change

  Published: Wednesday, December 12, 2007
More On This Story


Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations

Dec. 13, 2007

His Excellency Ban Ki-Moon

Secretary-General, United Nations

New York, N.Y.

Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC's conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line

by *government *representatives. The great *majority of IPCC contributors and *reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.

Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:

z Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.

z The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.

z Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.

In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is "settled," significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.

The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the "precautionary principle" because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.

The current UN focus on "fighting climate change," as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme's Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity's real and pressing problems.

Yours faithfully,


----------



## wayneL (16 January 2008)

(cont.)

List of signatories http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004

Signatories of an open letter on the UN climate conference

  Published: Tuesday, December 18, 2007

The following are signatories to the Dec. 13th letter to the Ban Ki-moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations on the UN Climate conference in Bali:

Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired vice-chancellor and president, University of Canberra, Australia

William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand

Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg

Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany

Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, U.K.; Editor, Energy & Environment journal

Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S.

Reid A. Bryson, PhD, DSc, DEngr, UNE P. Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin

Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta

R.M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand

David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma

Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University

Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia

Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands

Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario

David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of 'Science Speak,' Australia

William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame

Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia

R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai'i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai'i at Manoa

Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut fÃ¼r Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany

Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay

Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden

Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand

William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project

Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut

Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia

Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona

Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA

Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis

Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, NSW, Australia

Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Olavi KÃ¤rner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia

Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia

David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand

Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007

William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia's National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization's Commission for Climatology Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands

Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands

The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.

Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware

Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand

William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif.

Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology


----------



## wayneL (16 January 2008)

(cont.)

A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors

Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia

Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia

Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut fÃ¼r Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany

John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand

Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.

Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph

John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia

Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand

Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University

Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen's University

Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA's Deregulation Unit, Australia

Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden

Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia

David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

James J. O'Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University

Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia

Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia

R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University

Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota

Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan

Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences

Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force

R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology

Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.

Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway

Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA

S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service

L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario

Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden

Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC

Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia

Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia

Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany

Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia

Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia

A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 January 2008)

wayne

sure there's some that challenge the IPCC
and sure you can't control climate - but you can nudge the steering wheel surely.

then - seen at from yet a different angle again (and this is the bit that I really enjoyed in recent months) the US was jeered at Bali.

As for that list , casual observation - but there's Singer and Ball again - I'd delete them from the petition if I was organising it - spoils it's cred...  (I mean, you'll find their names on petitions claiming that smoking doesn't hurt you )


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 January 2008)

PS I take it , wayne, you think US should have stuck to their digs, and told the rest of the conference at Bali that they were gullible fools, and they USA weren't changing their wasteful and extravagent ways for anyone !

what are some of the spin offs here ?
planting trees - less destruction of exg forests - hard to imagine that's a bad thing (might even help a few critters survive the next decade / century)

less dependence on fossil fuels - ditto - (we're gonna run out anyways)

that's before we look at the "symptoms" of the patient -  like coral reef etc
etc etc

My guess is that you're agreed with those things - yet ? for some reason you keep throwing up arguments, which for the life of me I can't understand where they are going


----------



## wayneL (16 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> PS I take it , wayne, you think US should have stuck to their digs, and told the rest of the conference at Bali that they were gullible fools, and they USA weren't changing their wasteful and extravagent ways for anyone !
> 
> what are some of the spin offs here ?
> planting trees - less destruction of exg forests - hard to imagine that's a bad thing (might even help a few critters survive the next decade / century)
> ...



Illustration of my point that the world is shooting at the wrong target.


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 January 2008)

wayneL said:


> Illustration of my point that the world is shooting at the wrong target.



ok 
think of it as a conspiratorial trick to get people to plant trees if you wish - 
whatever


----------



## wayneL (16 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> ok
> think of it as a conspiratorial trick to get people to plant trees if you wish -
> whatever




Trees are nice. The more trees the better, but won't ameliorate the pollution problem. (but may help in some instances of environmental degradation).

But still, more trees please (not enough to go around for all us tree huggers ).


----------



## numbercruncher (16 January 2008)

> Greenland thaw 'biggest in 50 years'
> Climate change has caused the greatest thaw of Greenland's ice in half a century, perhaps heralding a wider meltdown that would quicken a rise in world sea levels, scientists say.




http://au.news.yahoo.com/080115/2/15jag.html


Bad news seems to be coming thick and fast as of late ...


----------



## wayneL (16 January 2008)

numbercruncher said:


> http://au.news.yahoo.com/080115/2/15jag.html
> 
> 
> Bad news seems to be coming thick and fast as of late ...



Thaw?

It's the middle of winter up this end of the world.


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 January 2008)

numbercruncher said:


> http://au.news.yahoo.com/080115/2/15jag.html
> 
> Bad news seems to be coming thick and fast as of late ...



top article NC.  

hopefully there are others besides wayne who read it


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 January 2008)

wayneL said:


> Thaw?
> 
> It's the middle of winter up this end of the world.




Wayne my son is in UK at the moment and claims it's not that cold. 

In case you're interested here's what the weather bureau stats say (for Dec 2007) ....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/ukweather/year_review/reviews/december2007_review_england.shtml



> England Mean Temperature Series (series began in 1914). The provisional mean value for the month is 4.8°C , *0.5°C above the 1961-1990 average.*
> 
> England Rainfall Series (series began in 1914). The provisional total for the month is 86.6mm 86% of the 1961-1990 average.
> 
> England Sunshine Series (series began in 1929). The provisional total for the month is 52.8 hours 117% of the 1961-1990 average.


----------



## wayneL (16 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Wayne my son is in UK at the moment and claims it's not that cold.
> 
> In case you're interested here's what the weather bureau stats say (for Dec 2007) ....
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/ukweather/year_review/reviews/december2007_review_england.shtml



It's not. It's very mild. But one swallow does not a summer make, and I draw your attention to my post just a few down which included a photo of the snow from my car (as we sat there for six hours). We have had other freezing weather since I've been here as well. One day did not get above -2, which is also "not normal".

However, actual weather readings cannot be argued with, the cause of such can.

But you miss the thrust of my argument in focusing on AGW, and that is we should be focusing on the whole enchilada, not just CO2 emmisions.


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 January 2008)

wayne back to that BBC Weather report website...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/ukweather/year_review/december2007_review.shtml



> Jan :2006
> England and Wales Mean Temperature Series (series began in 1914).
> 0.6 °C above the 1961-1990 average, which is in the above average category.
> 
> ...




etc 
I think you'd have to say that's a couple of years of pretty unusually warm weather yes?


----------



## wayneL (16 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> wayne back to that BBC Weather report website...
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/ukweather/year_review/december2007_review.shtml
> 
> 
> ...



It very well may be, but why? AGW or or something else?

In today's political climate, it is only permitted to draw one conclusion. As I keep repeating:

* If it's AGW, we can't now stop it. It's much too late and Kyoto is a joke.

* Too narrow a focus.

BTW, I have some nice parcels of land on Antarctica for sale, wanna buy one?

Hurry, selling like hot cakes.


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 January 2008)

wayne, 
one of these days you're gonna have to answer the simple question - 

- is it worth at least trying to improve the situation we (suddenly) find ourselves heading into - given that the effort encompasses 

a) more trees (which you like)
b) more critters 
c) less pollution of all types
d) less waste of fossil fuels - leave a few drops of oil for the grandkids maybe
e) more thrift wrt all manner of waste
f) more recycling; and 
f) David Suzuki would be proud of you ..


----------



## wayneL (16 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> wayne,
> one of these days you're gonna have to answer the simple question -
> 
> - is it worth at least trying to improve the situation we (suddenly) find ourselves heading into - given that the effort encompasses
> ...




FFS!!! Hasn't that been my position throughout the whole debate? How disingenuous!! Please do me a favour and re-read my posts.

That is exactly what I am advocating. By the disproportionate focus on the nebulous possibility of *A*GW, less focus is placed on the above points. The world focuses on stupid electric cars and nuclear energy so we don't have to change our lifestyles, when the ONLY answer is to change our lifestyles.

I'm a card carrying greenie dude (in the practical, not political sense), that's obvious (Sarcastic quips about Hummers aside). So please don't insult me with your above inference.

Sheesh!! Talk about missing the point!!!


----------



## Julia (16 January 2008)

numbercruncher said:


> They have to start somewhere plastic shopping bags is a valid target.
> 
> I think they really need to "popularise" doing the right thing, get all the famous folks on board, movie stars etc, once they go green the sheeples follow!




You're ignoring my point about kitchen bin liners.
What's your suggestion here?


----------



## numbercruncher (16 January 2008)

Julia said:


> You're ignoring my point about kitchen bin liners.
> What's your suggestion here?





Im keen for those to be ousted as well, lets go back to paper ! I cant hardly remember, isnt that what we used before plastic shopping bags came about ? 

All the plastic/poly etc wrapping around food/shopping items is what irks me the most, 6 bags of shopping yields like 2 bags of wrappings, crazy.


----------



## Julia (16 January 2008)

numbercruncher said:


> Im keen for those to be ousted as well, lets go back to paper ! I cant hardly remember, isnt that what we used before plastic shopping bags came about ?
> 
> All the plastic/poly etc wrapping around food/shopping items is what irks me the most, 6 bags of shopping yields like 2 bags of wrappings, crazy.



Yes, there were heavy paper bags with rigid bottom and sides.  No handles so very difficult to carry more than one at a time.
What about the woodchipping involved to make all the paper?

Agreed about the ridiclous amount of wrapping, especially on newspapers.


----------



## numbercruncher (16 January 2008)

Julia said:


> What about the woodchipping involved to make all the paper?





Weve pretty much mastered renewable pine plantations, just think of all that extra CO2 gobbled up in the process of growing all the extra trees needed for the Paper revolution !

Just need a renewable energy source running the chipping machines and fannys your aunt or atleast bobs your uncle 

Better than this plastic that hangs around for thousands of years, we will eventually be forced to change once we are drowning under this garbage.


----------



## wayneL (17 January 2008)

Julia said:


> Yes, there were heavy paper bags with rigid bottom and sides.  No handles so very difficult to carry more than one at a time.
> What about the woodchipping involved to make all the paper?
> 
> Agreed about the ridiclous amount of wrapping, especially on newspapers.



Tescos over here have introduced a hessian re-usable carrier bag. This is similar to the green Coles ones in Oz, but instead of being polyester like the coles bags, they are hessian and fully bio-degradable. You also get points on your Tesco card for using them each time you shop.

Still ludicrous amounts of packaging on all the products though.

Sainsbury's have made re-usable polyethylene bags recycled from the normal carrier bags. You buy the first ones, but if it breaks you trade it in for another for free, and the broken one is re-recycled.

I also believe the plastic singlet bags will be outlawed by 2009. 

One district council in Devon has already outlawed them and it is a howling success, all the locals just bring their own re-usable bags. 

On another vein... sort of off topic... there is a campaign here to encourage people to only buy free range chickens by exposing the cruelty of barn reared chooks. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/02/nchickens102.xml


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 January 2008)

I guess the good news is that when you hug a tree you hug a piece of carbon - so all causes benefit 

btw wayne - it would appear that you and David Suzuki dont have much in common on the carbon question


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 January 2008)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/17/2140238.htm?section=justin


> 2007 second-warmest year in 100 years: NASA
> Posted 1 hour 14 minutes ago
> 
> Scientists at the US space agency NASA say 2007 was the second-warmest year in a century.
> ...


----------



## wayneL (17 January 2008)

http://cbs4.com/local/cold.temperatures.record.2.622317.html



> Brrrr - Man It's Cold
> Click Here For Latest On Our Chilly Temperatures
> MIAMI (CBS4) ― South Florida had to bundle up Thursday as temperatures dropped into the low 30s in the early morning hours.
> 
> ...


----------



## wayneL (17 January 2008)

"On Dec. 4, in Seoul, South Korea, the temperature was a record minus 5 degrees Celsius.

On Nov. 24, in Meacham, Ore., the low temperature was 12 degrees Fahrenheit – colder than the previous record low set in 1952.

South America this year experienced one of its coldest winters in decades. In Buenos Aires, snow fell for the first time since the year 1918. In Peru, 200 people died from the cold and thousands more became infected with respiratory diseases. Crops failed, livestock perished, and the Peruvian government declared a state of emergency.

This week, it snowed in Iraq and Saudi Arabia. "


----------



## nioka (17 January 2008)

Has anyone really tried to shop at a supermarket without using plastic bags. How do you handle a variety of fruit and veg without the readily available plastic bags. OK you say we did without them before they were invented. Fair enough but then the green grocer came to the door, (the housewife would have been at home) Then there is the meat section, even with the plastic wrap the meat will weep into the nice green enviro bags and turn them into bacteria ridden health hazzards. 
Try getting a heap or loose toilet rolls next just for fun or unwraped chocolate, that would be funnier. 
Of course don't forget to buy up on bin liners because you won't have those free handy "singlet" plastic bags any more. 
 If anyone thinks plastic carry bags are waste then just refuse or recycle them, don't deprive others of them.
 I can tell you of a market stall holder who had a 50% drop in sales when his market managers banned plastic bags from the market.
I would sooner see petrol rationing introduced befor the banning of plastic bags. Think about that.


----------



## wayneL (17 January 2008)

nioka said:


> Has anyone really tried to shop at a supermarket without using plastic bags. How do you handle a variety of fruit and veg without the readily available plastic bags. OK you say we did without them before they were invented. Fair enough but then the green grocer came to the door, (the housewife would have been at home) Then there is the meat section, even with the plastic wrap the meat will weep into the nice green enviro bags and turn them into bacteria ridden health hazzards.
> Try getting a heap or loose toilet rolls next just for fun or unwraped chocolate, that would be funnier.
> Of course don't forget to buy up on bin liners because you won't have those free handy "singlet" plastic bags any more.
> If anyone thinks plastic carry bags are waste then just refuse or recycle them, don't deprive others of them.
> ...



As I mentioned above, a whole district council in Devon has banned them (but obviously not individual packaging on food), and it has been an uqualified success. HM government has picked up the ball and will be implementing it UK wide in 2009.

Mrs and I have been doing the same for years. Singlet bags suck... badly. You don't need them.


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/01/17/2140238.htm?section=justin
> 
> NASA predicting getting hotter etc




wayne
I can tell you, if I ever do one of the tourist space trips, I'd probably go with NASA Airlines
.... rather than with SPRINGER-BALL Airlines. 

PS I think the original caption was something about "ok folk, it seems we're not rocket scientists after all"

I wonder if they've ever apologised to the people who died of smoking under their encouragement. ?


----------



## wayneL (17 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> I guess the good news is that when you hug a tree you hug a piece of carbon - so all causes benefit
> 
> btw wayne - it would appear that you and David Suzuki dont have much in common on the carbon question



Suzuki is a biologist, not a climate scientist.


----------



## wayneL (17 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> wayne
> I can tell you, if I ever do one of the tourist space trips, I'd probably go with NASA Airlines
> .... rather than with SPRINGER-BALL Airlines.
> 
> ...



You choose two names out of a list of hundreds to create a straw man argument. I'd say you are clasping at straws. 

The AGW religion is in deep trouble m8, no way around that.


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 January 2008)

wayne
where there's smoke there's fire 
or should that be 

where there's smoke, there's a smoker?


----------



## noirua (17 January 2008)

Yes indeed, but where there are lots and lots of worms, eating all the waste, the greener and greener becomes Hong Kong.

This may well be a bigger and valid answer to many problems. Bring on them there worms.


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 January 2008)

speaking of worms
and green alternatives  
(warning this may turn you green)
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2140383.htm


----------



## roland (17 January 2008)

There was another report this morning on Channel Nine's morning show. From memory - a new warning about Greenland melting and the oceans to rise 7 metres in 50 years. I'm more into the frsh mountain air anyway.

Here is the link: http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-au&bra...y:ns:MSNVideo_Top_Cat:ps:10:sd:-1:ind:1:ff:8A


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 January 2008)

Top post roland.  
I think it's fair to say that 7m is not only "worst case scenario" but (about) 8? -  10 times what the IPCC would say ...   

In the link below, they predict 600mm for A1F1 scenario (worst prediction)  - (and only a fraction of that IF we get our act together bigtime!!) - eg 180 or 200mm. 

BUT having said that, since that 4th IPCC report, I believe they have updated their estimates, and higher ocean level increases are likely across all scenarios 

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=243897&highlight=upgraded#post243897


----------



## roland (17 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Top post roland.
> I think it's fair to say that 7m is not only "worst case scenario" but (about) 5 - 10 times what the IPCC would say ...
> 
> In the link below, they predict 600mm for A1F1 scenario - (and only a fractino of that IF we get our act together bigtime!!) - eg 180 or 200mm.
> ...




I see the biggest problem with the ocean rise is with some of the Pacific nations that are already under threat. I can't remember the Islands, but do rememeber seeing the documentaries of their islands disappearing and the fresh water ground water being contaminated with sea water. They have nowhere to go within their own environment. The rest of us can move inland ...


----------



## Wysiwyg (17 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> BUT having said that, since that 4th IPCC report, I believe they have updated their estimates, and higher ocean level increases are likely across all scenarios




Hi 20/20, these palm fronds will get a bit wet when it happens.(below)

I saw these guys drilling ice cores in Antarctica on t.v. and they reckon there is a flowing river about two miles under the polar ice cap.Hows that.Ice cores to prove up a bit of how the planet constantly changes.


----------



## roland (17 January 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> Hi 20/20, these palm fronds will get a bit wet when it happens.(below)
> 
> I saw these guys drilling ice cores in Antarctica on t.v. and they reckon there is a flowing river about two miles under the polar ice cap.Hows that.Ice cores to prove up a bit of how the planet constantly changes.




well that looks a bit scary, I am just imaging all of those canal suburbs on the Gold Coast as well ...


----------



## Wysiwyg (17 January 2008)

Lol the houses ... One black one, one white one, And one with a little sh1te on

or for the younger folk ... there are pink ones, there are green ones, there are blue ones and they`res yellow ones and they`re all made out of ticky tacky and they all look just the same.


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 January 2008)

wys - they'd better get all the evidence they can from those ice cores yes?
I mean - about the atmosphere, temp etc over hundreds of millenia..
before they melt and /or  before coring becomes too difficult / unreliable / washed out by underground thawing

changing subject 
:topic
I spent some time on Samoa in the 70's when the French were doing atomic test in Tahiti (Muraroa Atoll).  They had an air-testing station on the eastern tip of the island - could detect the smallest fraction of impurities in the air.. - and btw, the air ( frequently prevailing wind) had blown across thousands of km of uninterrupted ocean - 

they used to say ( probably myth)  - that if a ship sailed past on the horizon, then they could detect the exhaust fumes 

So ... as if they haven't been aware of the buld up of co2 ?? 
and as if they'd tell us if they knew.


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 January 2008)

Given that the northern hemisphere is doing so lousy with this global warming responsibility ( Europe excepted) 

as evidenced by the prediction that the arctic is melting much faster than the antarctic...

I suggest we build a dam/dyke right round the equator - to stop the warm currents from the north messing up the southern hemisphere.


----------



## wayneL (17 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> I suggest we build a dam/dyke right round the equator - to stop the warm currents from the north messing up the southern hemisphere.



Nooo, we want Antarctica to melt so we can go and live on it.


----------



## Wysiwyg (17 January 2008)

2020, have you ever wondered why oil is available to be used by humans or ore  can be turned into steel/alloy? Human life is contradictory!


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 January 2008)

wayneL said:


> Nooo, we want Antarctica to melt so we can go and live on it.



environmental refugees you reckon

ever see the movie "Waterworld"  wayne? 

this is a song written in antarctican language - means "p1ss off northern hemisphere"  :-

 video on waterworld


----------



## wayneL (17 January 2008)

wayneL said:


> Nooo, we want Antarctica to melt so we can go and live on it.



Actually, I'm thinking of buying one of those Viking farms in Greenland. You know the ones where they grew crops in the medieval warm period?

Covered in 20km of ice now, but in 2 or 3 years, I could be putting in my first cocoa bean crop.


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 January 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> 2020, have you ever wondered why oil is available to be used by humans or ore  can be turned into steel/alloy? Human life is contradictory!



:topic
yep amazing stuff
and the combination of the discovery of steel - and the fact that heat allows it to be formed  (God sure did his sums carefully  ) 

"the forge press moves down 
with the will of man
and the billot of steel responds"


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> I spent some time on Samoa in the 70's when the French were doing atomic test in Tahiti (Muraroa Atoll).  They had an air-testing station on the eastern tip of the island - could detect the smallest fraction of impurities in the air.. - and btw, the air ( frequently prevailing wind) had blown across thousands of km of uninterrupted ocean -
> 
> they used to say ( probably myth)  - that if a ship sailed past on the horizon, then they could detect the exhaust fumes
> 
> ...



There's one closer to home too. The Cape Grim Baseline Air Pollution Station (BAPS) at the NW tip of Tasmania.

It's pretty sensitive. It's near Roaring 40's 130MW Woolnorth wind farm and there was a big deal with the use of paints, glues, lubricants and indeed any kind of solvent etc during construction of the wind farm since that would mess up the readings. Even fumes from a single truck etc were an issue.

Much the same there with the air typically straight from the ocean thus free of local pollutants.

Another one that's a rather sad indicator, also in Tas, is that car fumes can be quite readily detected in the depths of the SW WHA. Not exactly a lot of traffic down there (no roads...) but it's still possible to detect fumes from elsewhere. Quite often that's fumes from outside the state - all depends on which way the wind is blowing.

All pretty clean compared to the air in any city though. Always amazes me just how far the haze spreads out from Sydney in particular. I don't know the distances but I'd guess it's in the order of 100 - 200km away under the right weather conditions. That alone is reason to be moving away from petrol etc IMO.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 January 2008)

wayneL said:


> As I mentioned above, a whole district council in Devon has banned them (but obviously not individual packaging on food), and it has been an uqualified success. HM government has picked up the ball and will be implementing it UK wide in 2009.
> 
> Mrs and I have been doing the same for years. Singlet bags suck... badly. You don't need them.



But what impact has this had on, for example, fossil fuel use for things other than plastic bag manufacture? It's hard to imagine that it would be zero.

At a more practical level, how do you overcome the problem of not knowing if/what you will be buying when you go to the store? I think 99% of people will just not go shopping without a car parked nearby as the solution.

Let's face it. If you want something other than basic food etc then odds are it requires going into several likely retailers in order to find what you want. Very rarely can I do my weekly shopping without going to both Coles AND Woolworths - there's always _something_ out of stock whichever I go to first. And it requires a third retailer just to buy sensibly priced milk. 

Likewise it's rare to buy multiple items from Big W / Kmart without having to go to both because one doesn't have it. Same way as you go to two different Target stores and they have different stock.

All of which becomes rather difficult when you have to have half a dozen empty bags checked each and every time you leave a store without buying anything. I honestly do think that most will end up with a stash of reusable bags permanently left in the car and avoiding shopping anywhere that isn't a shopping centre with a car park.

I'm not convinced this is good for the environment overall. Plastic use down for sure. But the unintended side effects?


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 January 2008)

roland said:


> I see the biggest problem with the ocean rise is with some of the Pacific nations that are already under threat. I can't remember the Islands, but do rememeber seeing the documentaries of their islands disappearing and the fresh water ground water being contaminated with sea water. They have nowhere to go within their own environment. The rest of us can move inland ...




http://www.geocities.com/wingian_chan/globwarm/pacific.htm

roland, tv doco on Tuvalu maybe ? - "area is only 26km² and the highest point no higher than 5m above sea levels"  -  "within 50 years" ... "Australia has rebuffed Tuvalu's calls to grant its citizens special visas in case they become 'environmental refugees"  - high time then we signed up to Kyoto 



> *Tuvalu* is one of the most notable victims of sea level rise. With a population of 11 000, it is made up of nine small atolls. Total land area is only 26km² and the highest point no higher than 5m above sea levels. Waves routinely lap at the doors of coastal homes, and the islanders' concerns grow with the rising water.
> Eventually, scientists warn, the tides will grow high enough to submerge the entire nation. High tides often swamp vast portions of Tuvalu. The island state has experienced record high tides of 3.2 metres that submerged much of the country, cutting telephone services for weeks and flooding Tuvalu's only airport. When strong winds and waves accompany the high tides, the flooding is even worse. The motu of Tepuka Savilivili in Tuvalu has lost its coconut trees and sandbanks.





> Straddling the Equator and the international dateline, *Kiribati* (pronounced Kee-ree-bas) is composed of 33 islands spread over 3 million km² in the central Pacific Ocean. One of the smallest and most isolated nations in the world, the terrain is mostly low-lying coral atolls surrounded by extensive reefs. In recent years, Kiribati islanders have reported unusually high tides, rogue waves, the loss of small islands, and storms more powerful than those of the past. The motu of Tebua Tarawa, a former landmark for fishermen, has disappeared.
> Kiribati has had to move roads inland as the Pacific eats away its shore. Some villages in Kiribati had already been forced to move inland because of worsening coastal erosion. The small island of Bikeman, located near Tarawa, was once a landmark to guide fishermen home. Now, Bikeman is submerged underwater, probably due to the rise in sea level. Years ago, the island was called Tebuneuea, meaning "the place for chiefs," where people used to present their gifts to the gods. Today, people can only walk on the former island in knee-deep water.





> The *Tokelau Islands *(NZ) are about halfway between New Zealand and Hawaii. Global warming is a major concern there considering that the highest point on any of the 127 islands is only 5m above sea level, and there have been UN predictions that the atolls could be uninhabitable by the end of the 21st century.






> Environmental Refugees
> 
> As global warming continues, in extreme circumstances, it may become necessary to abandon some atolls or low-lying islands altogether. Such an option would be socially and culturally disruptive and would require access to substantial resources -- which most of these countries may be unable to afford.
> ...
> ...




All those islands have major problem with fresh water at the best of times.  In American Samoa, there were pumps in the centre of the island perched over a small cone of fresh water  -  when the canneries needed water ( about 10 km from the pumps), they'd "turn on the suction pumps"    - bludy brilliant (not) - suck up all the sewerage into the water supply etc  . 

But as the salt water level rises, the water supply gets less and less "viable".


----------



## wayneL (18 January 2008)

*TUVALU*

Exposing more GW BS

http://www.pacificmagazine.net/issue/2002/02/01/is-tuvalu-really-sinking



> Check the Science
> Well, rather than rely on Brown's "sense" of sea level rise, let's check the instruments. As it turns out, estimates of globally averaged sea level rise in the 20th century are irrelevant since Tuvalu's local sea level change is very different from the globally averaged change. There are three estimates of sea level changes for Tuvalu. The first is a satellite record showing that the sea level has actually fallen four inches around Tuvalu since 1993 when the hundred-million dollar international TOPEX/POSEIDON satellite project record began. Second comes from the modern instruments recording tide gauge data since 1978. There the record for Tuvalu shows ups and downs of many inches over periods of years. For example, the strong El Niño of 1997-98 caused the sea level surrounding Tuvalu to drop just over one foot. The El Niño Southern Oscillation is a natural - as opposed to man-made -future of the Pacific Ocean, as areas of the Pacific periodically warm then cool every few years, causing significant sea level rises and falls every few years in step with the co-oscillations of the ocean and atmosphere. The overall trend discerned from the tide gauge data, according to Wolfgang Scherer, Director of Australia's National Tidal Facility, remains flat. "One definitive statement we can make," states Scherer, "is that there is no indication based on observations that sea level rise is accelerating." Finally, there is the new estimate by scientists at the Centre Nationale d ¹Etudes Spatiales who also find that between 1955 and 1996 the sea level surrounding Tuvalu dropped four inches.
> 
> All these measurements show that Tuvalu has suffered, at worst, no sea level rise. So much for Brown's sense of sea level trends for Tuvalu.
> ...


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 January 2008)

numbercruncher said:


> Weve pretty much mastered renewable pine plantations, just think of all that extra CO2 gobbled up in the process of growing all the extra trees needed for the Paper revolution !
> 
> Just need a renewable energy source running the chipping machines and fannys your aunt or atleast bobs your uncle



Almost exactly what environmentalists are fighting in Tasmania right now. A pulp mill that is indeed powered almost 100% by renewable energy and using a renewable resource that's already being harvested.

Ever wondered why I'm a tad cynical about the green movement? I've just seen too many instances where they support an idea then launch a massive campaign against it as soon as someone tries to actually build it.

Brilliant politics though and gains votes. There are probably people in Sydney etc who think the Tamar Valley is some sort of wilderness such is the brilliance of green marketing.


----------



## wayneL (18 January 2008)

Climate Catastrophe Cancelled

1/5


2/5


3/5


4/5


5/5


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 January 2008)

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=The+Denial+Machine&search=Search


1/4
  The Denial Machine- pt 1 of 4  etc

2/4
 

3/4


4/4


----------



## wayneL (18 January 2008)

LOL


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 January 2008)

wayne 
putting aside the fact that I'm probably a better follower of (all) the teachings of David Suzuki than you - I mean, I shampoo my hair once a year maybe, I use a minimum of plastic bags, though you need a few to pick up dog droppings - best to check if they have a hole in the bottom of course - if they have a hole in the bottom, you give them to the kids when they take the dog for a walk  

let's assume we agree on everything except whether we should use alternative power rather than fossil fuel, (though I suspect you would half agree - or something) 

then we must agree on a heap of stuff

are we not like two irish carriage drivers - driving along the same narrow muddy dirt track, buffetting each other - taking every opportunity to splash mud on the other - 
yet in the end going along the SAME road, and in the SAME direction.  ?

PS I'm gonna strangle that DOW one of these days


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 January 2008)

As posted elsewhere .. in the past when there was a lot of sunspot activity, there was maybe a corresponding increase in vegetation ??  let’s plant a few trees now so that when sunspot activity peaks in 2012 ish , there will be some serious carbon sinking going on.   - and the birdlife and wildlife might appreciate it as well


----------



## Scuba (18 January 2008)

Interesting video article on ABC net 2007 second hottest year in Century: NASA

Steps in the right direction?  US car giant prepares world for life without oil


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 January 2008)

An interesting read here. Whilst I've long been convinced that we'll end up burning everything we can, it seems there may not be as much coal as is commonly assumed.

In short, it seems that coal is subject to the exact same "reserves never revised to account for production" problem as oil. Also that many coal reserves are "disappearing" as the resource is sterilised through other land uses, because it wasn't really there in the first place and so on.

Also, it seems that China is adding as much coal-fired power generation every season as Australia has built over the past 50 years. The "good" news though is they seem in danger of running out of coal to fire it with.

Actually, that may not be so good when you think about the non-climate consequences of resource shortages (war).


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 January 2008)

An interesting read here. Whilst I've long been convinced that we'll end up burning everything we can, it seems there may not be as much coal as is commonly assumed.

In short, it seems that coal is subject to the exact same "reserves never revised to account for production" problem as oil. Also that many coal reserves are "disappearing" as the resource is sterilised through other land uses, because it wasn't really there in the first place and so on.

Also, it seems that China is adding as much coal-fired power generation every season as Australia has built over the past 50 years. The "good" news though is they seem in danger of running out of coal to fire it with.

Actually, that may not be so good when you think about the non-climate consequences of resource shortages (war).

http://www.davidstrahan.com/blog/?p=116


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 January 2008)

Scuba said:


> Interesting video article on ABC net 2007 second hottest year in Century: NASA
> 
> Steps in the right direction?  US car giant prepares world for life without oil



Scuba - great watch (re hybrid cars etc ) 
they forced us to go to unleaded - next hybrid you reckon? lol

(PS I downloaded VLC media player to watch ABC videos - seems to work ok)



			
				Smurf said:
			
		

> .....




only 150 years of even coal ! - sheesh
Sometimes I think it's a good thing that the Newcastle coal loaders can't keep up with demand 



> The great coal hole
> Posted on Thursday, January 17th, 2008
> First published in New Scientist, 17 January 2008
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 January 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> There are probably people in Sydney etc who think the Tamar Valley is some sort of wilderness such is the brilliance of green marketing.



Is the taste of James Boag gonna change? - the odd bit of cardboard maybe?


----------



## noirua (19 January 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> An interesting read here. Whilst I've long been convinced that we'll end up burning everything we can, it seems there may not be as much coal as is commonly assumed.
> 
> In short, it seems that coal is subject to the exact same "reserves never revised to account for production" problem as oil. Also that many coal reserves are "disappearing" as the resource is sterilised through other land uses, because it wasn't really there in the first place and so on.
> 
> ...




Shortage of coal, no way. South Australia has enough sub-bitumous coal to power Australia for more than the next thousand years. As new technology gradually comes onstream, much of it from Germany, the amount of lignite well exceeds all the other coal resources put together, and that, will alone see the World through to the next Millennium.


----------



## wayneL (19 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> are we not like two irish carriage drivers - driving along the same narrow muddy dirt track, buffetting each other - taking every opportunity to splash mud on the other -
> yet in the end going along the SAME road, and in the SAME direction.  ?



Yeah but, I've been training, to be sure to be sure. 







Begorrah!!


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 January 2008)

I'm planning on hiring this for the occasion - comes with supplies
 Original Budweiser Clydesdale Commercial 

Important to teach the kids ofcourse ...
 *Teach the kids *

and atmospheric dangers by the dozen 
 Budweiser commercial - *Atmospheric Dangers*

well this bloke gets confused - takes his mind off his gas monitoring - and look where he ends up !! not adviseable.  - not that I fully follow the plot lol - by I think it's good to get all sorts of messages through to teenagers .....
a) care for the planet, and
b) safe sex 
probably in that order 

 Unsafe Sex


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> I think it's good to get all sorts of messages through to teenagers .....
> a) care for the planet, ...



To be honest , my daughter is the best advocate I know for "care for the planet" - think they get it at school a bit these days - some schools anyway - sponsoring her own kid in Africa in World Vision - and just itching to go work in an orphanage in Ghana


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 January 2008)

The important thing is to avoid Italian arguments - because they just go round in circles 

PS you'll get the ghist of this after the first 20 seconds lol.

  Ben Hur


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 January 2008)

noirua said:


> Shortage of coal, no way. South Australia has enough sub-bitumous coal to power Australia for more than the next thousand years. As new technology gradually comes onstream, much of it from Germany, the amount of lignite well exceeds all the other coal resources put together, and that, will alone see the World through to the next Millennium.



I think you've missed the point of the article. That there's plenty of coal is a view that has been widely accepted for a very long time. 

But it's a bit like saying the earth is flat. If it's been the idea for a long enough time then it _must_ be right.

Same with coal. We're all taking for granted that there's plenty. And yet NOBODY seems to be able to answer the question of how much there is simply because so many countries, including China (by far the world's largest coal producer) provide data that is almost certainly incorrect.

A lot of coal in the ground for sure. But how much is actually able to be mined? That's the real point being made. I don't have precise figures at hand but I know it comes to in the order of 10% of known coal being mineable for both Victoria and Tasmania. If those two states are any indication of the global situation then that's 90% of coal resources effectively useless.

There's coal within an hour's walk of both Sydney and Hobart city centres. Both have historically mined some but long since abandoned the operation.  Likewise there's lignite in the suburbs of Melbourne though it's never been commercially mined to my knowledge. There are houses built on top of abandoned mines in the UK - but there's still plenty of coal there that is counted in official data.

What are the odds of any of these  producing coal in the future? Pretty low IMO and they can't be the only examples worldwide. So the mineable reserves are what, exactly? Nobody's really sure...


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 January 2008)

http://www.media.tas.gov.au/release.php?id=22883

Looks like we're trying to give the Americans a bit of a hint as to how it's done with renewable energy. Probably won't change any policies but might bring a bit of business.

Roaring 40's is a wind energy joint venture (50/50) between Hydro Tasmania and China Light & Power. It has activities in Tasmania, South Australia, China and India.  

Note that the link is a political media release and not from Roaring 40's, HT or CLP but it's farily accurate nonetheless.


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 January 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> Looks like we're trying to give the Americans a bit of a hint as to how it's done with renewable energy. Probably won't change any policies but might bring a bit of business.
> 
> Roaring 40's is a wind energy joint venture (50/50) between Hydro Tasmania and China Light & Power. It has activities in Tasmania, South Australia, China and India.






> In addition Hydro Tasmania produces 50 per cent of Australia’s renewable energy



congratulations Smurf 

btw, and fwiw, CLP is HK based


----------



## wayneL (21 January 2008)

Gotta love the English sense of humour:


----------



## numbercruncher (21 January 2008)

On a positive note a Market crash/recession is going to work wonders for our ailing Enviroment! Might usher in a wind of change, kick start the economy with a renewable rollout revolution!


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 January 2008)

numbercruncher said:


> On a positive note a Market crash/recession is going to work wonders for our ailing Enviroment! Might usher in a wind of change, kick start the economy with a renewable rollout revolution!



This might shock you a bit  but I'm thinking the exact opposite. I noticed long ago that concern about the environment peaks as the economic cycle peaks and drops from there.

There was a lot of concern about the greenhouse effect (as it was known at the time) in the late 1980's. Come the recession and it became a political impossibility to even consider anything that cost coal industry jobs or increased energy prices no matter what the long term benefits. It was only recently that public concern over the issue returned to those levels. 

Likewise there was the fight over Wesley Vale pulp mill in 1989. By the mid-1990's and still in recession or near enough to it the general feeling in Tas had changed to that of just pursue something, anything, that creates jobs. It even came to packed out public meetings with a farily broad representation from teenagers through to grandparents and former premiers. And the focus was simple - how are we going to create employment.

I don't recall anyone mentioning the environment. There were those who saw tourism, the Hydro, agriculture, manufacturing, call centres and so on as the solution. But nobody said anything about greenhouse emissions, flooded valleys or pollution.

And the responses were fairly consistent. If it's going to employ me, my children or indeed anyone then go ahead and do it. If I can help get it started in some way then I'll do whatever you need. We need jobs...

I've been pretty closely involved with the whole environment versus development thing for my entire adult life. A natural consequence of living where the world's first Green political party was created and having an interest in the energy developments which started it all. But my main observation is simple. People do care about the environment - until they see rising unemployment figures on the front page of the paper. And from that point on they want development no matter what the consequence. 

If we do get a serious global recession then I'd say there's a fairly high chance that Kyoto is simply forgotten. At least it will be if a new coal-fired power station brings construction jobs.


----------



## Rafa (23 January 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> If we do get a serious global recession then I'd say there's a fairly high chance that Kyoto is simply forgotten. At least it will be if a new coal-fired power station brings construction jobs.




whilst kyoto may be forgotten, the simple fact our only focus would have to be putting food on the table, rather then buying a plasma tv for each room in the house, has got to be good for the environment...!


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 January 2008)

It looks like the "rain hole" has started early in Tas this year. Basically no inflows to the storages at all. Meanwhile Queensland has floods. 

This lack of rain for a few months in the first part of the year in Tas is becoming alarmingly predictable to the point where even those who stand to lose are acknowledging that it seems to be permanent.

Meanwhile some nuclear plants in the US may have to shut due to drought there. Trouble is, the "fix" for that will be burning more fossil fuels. Just like the "fix" for the drought in Tas is burning more coal in Vic and especially NSW to offset lower hydro-electric output.

And China has blackouts now. A power shortfall equivalent to the entire consumption of Qld or Vic in just one part of China and plenty of troubles in the rest of the country too. Why? Because they aren't mining and transporting the coal quickly enough and are, I'm told, down to about one week's supply left. And the solution? Well they'll just mine faster, get more trains and more trucks...


----------



## --B-- (25 January 2008)

another interesting article challenging the science behind the much vaunted UN IPCC reports and the 'consensus' that some believe exists...


> Why 'Global Warming' is Not a Global Crisis
> Special to the Hawaii Reporter
> By Christopher Monckton, 1/22/2008 8:06:23 AM    I earned my Nobel Peace Prize by making the United Nations fix a deliberate error in its latest climate assessment. After the scientists had finalized the draft, UN bureaucrats inserted a new table, but with four decimal points right-shifted. The bureaucrats had multiplied tenfold the true contribution of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets to sea-level rise. Were they trying to support Al Gore’s fantasy that these two ice-sheets would imminently cause sea level to rise 20ft, displacing tens of millions worldwide? How do we know the UN’s error was deliberate? The table, as it first appeared, said the units for sea-level rise were being changed. But the table was new. There was nothing to change from. I wrote to the UN that this misconduct was unacceptable. Two days later, the bureaucracy corrected, relabeled and moved the table, and quietly posted the new version on its Web site. The two ice sheets will contribute, between them, over 100 years, just two and a half inches to sea-level rise. Gore had exaggerated a hundredfold; the UN tenfold. Hawaii is not about to disappear beneath the waves.
> The High Court in London recently ordered the British Government to correct nine of the 36 serious errors in Al Gore’s climate movie before innocent pupils were exposed to it. It was Gore who, in 1994, announced that Mars was covered in canals full of water. This notion had been disproved before his birth. It was Gore who recently spent $4 million of the profits from his sci-fi comedy horror movie on a luxury condo just feet from the supposedly rising ocean at Fisherman’s Wharf, San Francisco. No surprise that he and the mad scientists with whom he has close financial and political links are under investigation for racketeering -- peddling a false prospectus to investors in his “green” investment corporation by distorting climate science even after the UK judge’s ruling.
> ...



http://www.hawaiireporter.com/story.aspx?9c8600a9-6750-45cb-b7ee-c8ca6b6d3a75


----------



## noirua (25 January 2008)

Biofuel demand is pushing up the cost of food. 
This pushes up inflation. 
Inflation causes Governments to increase interest rates. 
Increasing interest rates reduces World growth.
Then follows turmoil as we have seen.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/survey/so/2007/RES1017A.htm


----------



## Dextrum (25 January 2008)

*Re: FCL and others*

My view is that the focus in 2008 will be on agribusiness and the increased demand for meat and grain in the Indian and Chinese continents. Those agribusinesses such as FCL ABB and GNC are well placed to capitalise on this demand. 

FCL is probably now reconsidering its intended sale of its stake in AAC and I consider FCL for this reason is a good mid term buy target and undervalued. It has in the past 18 months had private equity concerns reviewing its books as the focus of PE will change to agristocks over 2008.


----------



## numbercruncher (26 January 2008)

I read in todays Gold Coast bulletin that a French designed car that runs on compressed Air go's into production this european Summer, cost 6 to 7 thousand dollars ( three seater) ! Takes a few minutes to refill with air at a refill station or 3.5hrs via the inbuilt compressor.

I believe the race is fully on to have these types of vehicles rolling off the line, GM is supposed to have an Electric out 2010.

Found the makers website ...

http://www.theaircar.com/

ps. Its damn ugly, but Id buy one !


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 January 2008)

Conmpressed air, hydrogen, batteries. 

All of these are ways of using electricity without being physically connected to the grid. But electricity is nonetheless what the car ultimately runs on.

Hence my often repeated point about the need to move towards a near totally renewable electricity supply. Forget distributed this and 20% that if you want an actual solution. What we need is a paradigm shift from coal and gas to something clean and sustainable for all electricity.


----------



## numbercruncher (26 January 2008)

I totally agree Smurf! Wind, Solar, Wave, Hydro etc all have a huge part in our future, cant wait.


few more facts about the soon to be released Air Car ...



> Consumption is less than one Euro per 100Km (Approx 0.75 Euro, according to use, i.e. about a tenth that of a petrol car). This makes it an attractive prospect for any driver, professional or not.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> As no combustion takes place, there is no pollution. Its mileage is about double that of the most advanced electric car (200 a 300 Km or 10 hours of driving), a factor which makes a perfect choice in cities where the 80% of motorists drive at less than 60Km.
> ...


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 January 2008)

Smurf's going to throw another tin of petrol on the fire and see what happens. 



> So, on one side we have an industry, tourism, that actually produces nothing, that lives off the fat of a wealthy society and which, for dollars earned, comes at a massive cost in carbon. And, on the other, a power plant that might have helped secure a cleaner energy future.




I had nothing to do with this, it's from the Sydney Morning Herald. All I'll say is that I've done the sums, a long time ago, and never did believe that tourism offered a sustainable economic base due not only to it's non-productive status, but due to the oil situation for which we have no answer in the context of aviation. 

That said, and this might surprise a few, I actually was never too keen on _that_ dam for a number of reasons including conservation. I'm still not keen on it, but I will be if we can't get proper proof that geothermal's a goer by 2012.

3, 2, 1... here comes the barrel of petrol aimed straight at the fire... 

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/...n/2007/12/17/1197740178873.html?page=fullpage


----------



## Wysiwyg (27 January 2008)

Sorry, but `fixing` the effect and not the cause is what we humans do worse.Exponential growth.I suppose we can always start docking the boys at birth


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 January 2008)

Smurf, advice please
there are a couple of articles on Emissions Trading Schemes etc in the latest Engineers Aust Magazine. - maybe you've seen them.

and requirements for reporting emissions by mid 2008 etc (for some companies at least).  NGER National Greenhouse and Energy Register etc. 

I reckon it deserves a new thread 
Just can't think what to call it. ?

Maybe managers "at the coal face" - oops, make that "at the alternative energy face"  could post their experiences on how the system is affecting them . 

Then again - no reason it couldn't be here I guess.


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 January 2008)

In answer to the ridiculous claim that CO2 is not a pollutant, i.e. it is "plant food" ...

....... I make the equally ridiculous point ( fighting fire with fire here) that CO2 is seen as a suitable "emergency on-farm euthanasia of swine"
http://www.aasv.org/shap/issues/v13n4/v13n4p210.html



> Summary
> In the event of a foreign animal disease outbreak in the United States, a rapid and humane method of on-farm swine euthanasia will be required. Given the extraordinary number of animals involved and the design of currently used swine confinement buildings, methods relying on the handling and restraint of individual animals will likely prove much too slow to stem the spread of disease. Humanely depopulating commercial swine production facilities may be accomplished by using enclosed dump bed trucks or trailers as on-farm carbon dioxide euthanasia chambers.
> 
> We review the principles governing the use of carbon dioxide in enclosed spaces and show that adherence to the 2000 Report of the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) Panel on Euthanasia recommendation for carbon dioxide flow rate is appropriate for humane euthanasia within any enclosed volume or space. In addition, we demonstrate the feasibility of applying the AVMA guidelines for on-farm carbon dioxide euthanasia to groups of adult pigs.


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 January 2008)

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


> The density of air, ρ (Greek: rho) (air density), is the mass per unit volume of Earth's atmosphere, .... As does air pressure, air density decreases with increasing altitude and temperature. At sea level and at 20  °C, dry air has a density of approximately 1.2 kg/m3 (call this an SG of 0.0012)



Hence 1GL = 10^9 L = 10^6 m^3 = 1,200,000 kg = 1200T.

Hence the volume under the Sydney Harbour Bridge deck (=1GL) is 1200T of CO2 
unless I'm mistaken ( seems a lot ?)

and 1T of CO2 is the volume of 833 m^2 = 2.5m x 18.25m x 18.25m (= 8.2ft x 60 ft x 60 ft)
= very roughly 1T of CO2 is the volume of a "typical" (large?) house (say 36 squares plan area), ceiling height 2.5m 

E& OE 

"the initial scheme for the stationary energy sector would set the unit of measure at 1T CO2-e , and one permit would be required for each tonne emitted"


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 January 2008)

Animal rights activists, Terri Irwin, Jane Goodall, Pink.

http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=1396
1. Terri Irwin... "we started filming (almost) by accident" - "we don't suit up to tell people about wildlife - we LIVE it! - we all need to part ofit or we're gonna lose planet Earth!" 


> Animals had always been a family affair for Steve Irwin. His parents were wildlife experts who built a zoo and later passed it on to him. Steve, who became a huge animal conservation advocate, said he'd like to eventually pass the torch on to his children. That's what's been happening since his death last September. And not with just promoting animal conservation, but also promoting Australia as a travel destination. What is daughter Bindi (and wife Terri) doing to continue his work?




http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=1673
2. Jane Goodall .. "I can remember you when yuo were just one day old - now you're a fallen king - the wounds are better but your mind is worried" 


> Dr. Jane Goodall. She's spent forty-seven years living with, studying, writing about and advocating for chimpanzees.
> 
> But don't call her just an animal-rights activist. Her institute campaigns for wildlife research, education, conservation, and works to empower women and communities in the Kigoma region of Africa. Dr. Jane Goodall is celebrating the thirtieth anniversary of "The Jane Goodall Institute" this year by lecturing around the world on the challenges and success of conservation projects and improving the lives of the people who live around them.




http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=1352
3. Pink ..
hey wayne ... she's on Gore's team  (Pink)

as long as you keep Aussie "sheep farming" out of this - I notice she ain't popular with the Aussie sheep industry. (the second of 2 videos) 

slow start but at the 4m 27s mark:-
Pink: "*Of course I'm obsessed with 'An Inconvenient Truth' - I have a hybrid *-which everybody should  ... so much to learn - I love learning about it - the fact that I can turn off a light switch and I'm doing something good" 



> However, Pink is not merely focused on the entertainment industry. She is a strong animal rights activist and is turning her attention to the growing issue of the environment. Find out how Pink is changing the world for the better.




PS At last, a blond US singer who doesn't rely on her pelvic thrusts to sell records...


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Animal rights activists, Terri Irwin, Jane Goodall, Pink.
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/thehour/video.php?id=1396
> 1. Terri Irwin... "we started filming (almost) by accident" - "we don't suit up to tell people about wildlife - we LIVE it! - we all need to part ofit or we're gonna lose planet Earth!"
> ...



But Smurf doesn't fail to notice the irony of it all.

If I go to the CD player and put in a Pink CD then crank up the volume then, in short, I'm burning fossil fuels to do it. And don't even mention how much fuel a major concert burns - it's not trivial. 

Basically nothing we do is completely free of fossil fuels. Save a bit on heating the house and spend the money on something else - all you're doing is changing the means of CO2 production. 

If you paid for it, it pollutes. All of it.


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 January 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> But Smurf doesn't fail to notice the irony of it all.
> 
> If I go to the CD player and put in a Pink CD then crank up the volume then, in short, I'm burning fossil fuels to do it. And don't even mention how much fuel a major concert burns - it's not trivial.



some of her songs are quite quiet mate 

Lee Kernaghan uses heaps more "watts"  - "what's that?" -  "I SAID WATTS" 

ps I hear you.  
THAT"s it - from hence forth,  Big Day Out is cancelled !

 Pink - Dear Mr President Live In Wembley - I'm Not Dead Tour


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> some of her songs are quite quiet mate



Yeah I know. I normally skip those songs and do my bit to keep the house nice and warm by cranking up my 1000W amp... 

Off that topic though, I must give full credit to whoever scheduled the ads during the Simpsons tonight. Homer plugs in the electric Santa during a heatwave and plunges Springfield into darkness. 

A minute or two later it's not one but literally every second advertisement telling me to shut the curtains and have a cold bath (well, give the clothes a cold wash) in order to "save energy, save money".

Yep, nice scheduling that and it's all about saving the environment, right? Absolutely nothing to do with zero inflows, 23.3% storage, gas-fired generation only half working... No, it's about the environment and saving the householder a bit of money (at least they'll think so until those inflated bills start arriving). : :


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 January 2008)

Speakin of inflated bills- did I tell you about my brother in law - he complained about his electricity bills a few years back - they were astronomical. 

Power company said - pay up, or we shut you down!
he paid - but next month same problem .
again "pay up, or we shut you down!"
he said "damn it - I can't afford to keep this up".
So they turned off his power, and all the street lamps went out 
(believe it or nuts lol)


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 January 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Speakin of inflated bills- did I tell you about my brother in law - he complained about his electricity bills a few years back - they were astronomical.
> 
> Power company said - pay up, or we shut you down!
> he paid - but next month same problem .
> ...



It's even funnier when the power company realises after literally 30 years that the swimming pool (at a swimming centre) isn't connected to the meter. Only the office and lights but not the pool itself. 

Needless to say they had some pretty low bills and a nice warm pool. And no surprises for guessing that the owners didn't see a problem with the arrangement.


----------



## willial (30 January 2008)

The main problem is global swarming and unless we control the population we cannot control resource use and pollution . it is politically difficult to say to people 2 or less children and extras you will be taxed for. The days of large welfare payments encouraging the non producing to breed should be past. By extreme measures we may cut our greenhouse gas emissions by 10% in world terms making .05% difference .Mainly political hot air as the parties lobby to who is greener. Watch rudd backslide from meaningful targets. Technology is the answer with improved absorption and conversion fo solar rays .


----------



## Wysiwyg (30 January 2008)

willial said:


> The main problem is global swarming and unless we control the population we cannot control resource use and pollution . it is politically difficult to say to people 2 or less children and extras you will be taxed for.* The days of large welfare payments encouraging the non producing **to breed should be past*. By extreme measures we may cut our greenhouse gas emissions by 10% in world terms making .05% difference .Mainly political hot air as the parties lobby to who is greener. Watch rudd backslide from meaningful targets. Technology is the answer with improved absorption and conversion fo solar rays .





Too right, encourage people to take responsibility for their lives and to pay their way through life.Planning for children through being financially able to support them and mentally stable to care for them are good building blocks.

I`m all for supporting the genuine weaker ones but i reckon there is a good 25% that are too damn lazy to look after themselves and prefer to feed off the people that do pay their way.


----------



## wayneL (1 February 2008)

FYI

Central China is having the coldest and snowiest winter in decades.

...and we had a few snowflakes in Cheltenham today... proper snow forecast for tommorrow.

I'm firing up the Hummer to see if I can warm things up a bit.


----------



## --B-- (1 February 2008)

but wayne the AGW hypists will have you believe that cold weather is also a sign of catastrophic climate change. 

any weather event these days is attributed to human caused climate change it seems and while the basis of the argument revolves around co2 trapping heat and therefore 'warming' the planet, this doesnt seem to matter if the weather doesnt play along...


----------



## Julia (1 February 2008)

--B-- said:


> but wayne the AGW hypists will have you believe that cold weather is also a sign of catastrophic climate change.
> 
> any weather event these days is attributed to human caused climate change it seems and while the basis of the argument revolves around co2 trapping heat and therefore 'warming' the planet, this doesnt seem to matter if the weather doesnt play along...



Yep, we've had the coolest spring and summer in the 14 years that I've lived in this part of Qld, hardly a day over 30 degrees.


----------



## Happy (1 February 2008)

One of arguments that this is global warming too, is that melting ice takes about 80 kcal per gram of ice to melt, once majority of ice cap is gone, temperatures will jump up higher faster.

Probably there is counterargument, which says that this is not correct, so until we fry or freeze we will be able to keep this debate alive.


----------



## long$$ (1 February 2008)

It has seemed a cool summer but.....

SMH Today

AUSTRALIA had its hottest January on record, in line with a pattern that has seen the country's average temperature rise over the past five decades under the impact of global warming.

"Nearly the whole country has been hotter than average for daytime and night-time temperatures in January," David Jones, the head of climate analysis at the Bureau of Meteorology, said yesterday. "It's not so much a few places breaking records by large margins. It's nearly the whole country being one to two degrees warmer than average".

The average temperature across the country rose 1.3 degrees last month, but large areas, especially in the Pilbara in Western Australia and in Central Australia, recorded temperatures three to four degrees above average.

"We just continue to get a stream of these records being broken," said Dr Jones, who has analysed Australia's rising temperature going back almost 60 years.

"The general pattern is one of warming. We have now warmed up by a degree since 1950. The effects of global warming have been felt across Australia as a whole. And the pattern of warming across Australia is very consistent with the pattern we've seen across the globe."

Sydney's daytime January temperature was right on average at 25.9 degrees thanks to easterly summer winds, but night-time temperatures were almost two degrees up at 20.3 degrees.

The rest of the state was not so fortunate. Temperatures in the south and west climbed two degrees higher than average.

Pooncarie, a town west of Griffith, recorded the state's highest temperature, 44.5 degrees. The licensee of Pooncarie's Telegraph Hotel, Sharon Neyland, did not need to be told the news.

"It would not surprise me at all," she said yesterday. "It's been terrible. I don't know whether it's because I am getting old but it's been very, very hot."

The only exception to the record temperatures was in eastern Queensland and north-eastern NSW, where wet weather brought the figures one or two degrees below the average.


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 February 2008)

Record drought in Tas.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/01/2152424.htm


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 February 2008)

Julia said:


> Yep, we've had the coolest spring and summer in the 14 years that I've lived in this part of Qld, hardly a day over 30 degrees.



Any chance of sending some of that down here? 

Recently Hobart's daily maximum has been averaging higher than Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide and about equal with Brisbane. It's cooled down in the past few days though.

The water you can see flowing into Great Lake in the previous post isn't a river or creek. It's just water being transferred from another storage that is itself virtually empty. Actual proper inflows are, well, they just aren't happening at all now.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 February 2008)

Smurf , better borrow Wayne's hummer and do a rain dance


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Smurf , better borrow Wayne's hummer and do a rain dance



A rain dance is looking like an attractive option at the moment. Might have to take a trip to Miena (Great Lake dam site) and give it a go. Probably more effective to just take a few buckets of water with me though and tip them in. That'll keep Poatina running at its current rate for all of another 0.0003 seconds...

It might work better to just jack the Hummer up, attach an alternator to the wheels and put a brick on the accelerator pedal. Either that or take the Premier's suggestion and participate in Earth Hour (it's just to help the environment of course ).


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 February 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> ... take a few buckets of water with me though and tip them in. That'll keep Poatina running at its current rate for all of another 0.0003 seconds...
> 
> ... Either that or take the Premier's suggestion and participate in Earth Hour (it's just to help the environment of course ).




1. Knowing you, that 0.0003 seconds is mathematically accurate lol.

2. possibly off topic - but SUREly all that spraying of the Tasmanian forest and forestry regrowth projects has something to do with the Tassie Devils problems. (?) 

I mean last time I was down there - or time b4 - I saw an old interview on TV of some bloke who was sprayed by one the forestry's planes - and since died of a horrible cancer (aren't they all).  

Surely the Forestry (with of course the Premier's full backing) are bordering on envoironmental vandalism there?


----------



## noirua (2 February 2008)

Sorry to harper back on this again but  reducing PACKAGING is a major answer to all this global warming. The Chinese have banned the use of plastic carrier bags and they are the first country to do this. 

Check your bin and see what is in it. Could you have bought items without packaging with a bit more effort. Have you refused to buy items just because they have too much packaging?
Do you take your own bag to get shopping?
Don't buy refrigerated or frozen packaged food.
If you'r offered a bag always say no thanks.


----------



## explod (2 February 2008)

noirua said:


> Sorry to harper back on this again but  reducing PACKAGING is a major answer to all this global warming. The Chinese have banned the use of plastic carrier bags and they are the first country to do this.
> 
> Check your bin and see what is in it. Could you have bought items without packaging with a bit more effort. Have you refused to buy items just because they have too much packaging?
> Do you take your own bag to get shopping?
> ...




Walking half a kilometer to the shops to get groceries instead of taking the car saves (envioronmentally) the equivalent of about 500 plastic shopping bags.   The big one for global warming is to leave the car in the garage.

Can we start to get this message across or is it the too hard basket.   Don't get me wrong, I am against the plastic bags also.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 February 2008)

spot on noi

This next example is not quite on your topic, but waste in packaging as well as deception ....

I bought some liver drops for the bludy dog - 
(the bitch - and her mother was a bitch too - anyway..) 

a coupla dozen come all wrapped in a small plastic bag (fair enough so far) then that's in a carboard packet with a little window and a flip top lid with special dovetail tab on top - 

so 
a) opening it is like "pass the parcel" at an infant's birthday party, 
b) when you think you're buying about 100 of these things you're lucky to get 25
b) waste of money, resources etc- all for 
c) some flaming dead bits of liver to give to a dog! 

But you're right plastic should be used sparingly. 
PS I can tell you the amount of gladwrap used in industry would frighten the socks off most here.  For instance we send maybe 10 pallets of product out on a daily basis at work.  Each is wrapped with about 30 metres of 600mm wide gladwrap to keep out dust etc


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> 1. Knowing you, that 0.0003 seconds is mathematically accurate lol.
> 
> 2. possibly off topic - but SUREly all that spraying of the Tasmanian forest and forestry regrowth projects has something to do with the Tassie Devils problems. (?)
> 
> ...



Yep, the 0.0003 seconds is about right for the current rate of discharge.

Warning: rant follows.

As for the forests, let's just say I'm not at all keen on the things they are allowed to get up to. And I would lump Labor, Liberal and the Greens as all guilty of either starting, encouraging or allowing this outright disaster of an industry to operate.

Actually, forestry not dams is the primary reason I'm not keen on the Greens and conservationists in general. If you look at their big campaign successes, like the Franklin and Wesley Vale, then they have pretty much all ended up with the same outcome. An increase in logging either because it was actually an idea proposed by conservationists (during the Franklin era) or because of the loss of other industry (eg Wesley Vale).

Bottom line is there wouldn't be anywhere near as much logging in Tas as there is right now if the Comalco-TEMCO-ANM-EZ-APPM-HEC that dominated the state's economy for decaces had carried on their collective way. Two more flooded rivers and a couple of localised pollution hotspots on the NW coast would have been the ONLY consequences. Less than 1% of the state's land mass affected. 

Instead we got this forestry farce that's the equivalent of turning gold into lead. Basically, what they do is rip out all the eucalypt trees (only the trunk) and then push EVERYTHING else into a great big pile. That's all the other tree species, all the branches, roots and so on. In short, most of what's there ends up in the pile. And these massive piles have to be seen to be believed. 

Then they wait for some nice still days in Autumn, get the flame thrower out and set the whole lot on fire. The amount of smoke that produces is incredible. I just can't ever accept that it's a worthwhile use of resources and it's pollution on a scale that nobody else would ever contemplate. 

The zinc works spent $100 million to stop a bit of pollution, Comalco spent $$$ millions too, TEMCO built wet lands, ANM and the NW mills put in all kinds of scrubbers and so on. Hydro's done lots of landscaping, planting trees, stuff to help the aquatic environment downstream of the dams etc. All admit to having made a bit of a mess in the past and have done what's practical to fix things up.  

But not forestry. They just keep on making as much mess as they like turning the wilderness into plantation monocultures that are good for nothing but another crop of trees. You can't even go for a decent walk in one. And the damn things only have the species of tree they want and don't grow without chemicals due to the lack of biodiversity. Hence the spraying.

Forestry is also the only industry I know of that _intentionally_ trashes high value resources and aims for the lowest grade. Smelters, power staions, mills of every kind always the aim is to extract as much product from the resource as possible and hundreds of millions of $ are invested to do it. Not with forestry though, if it's high grade then they smash it up to downgrade it so they can chip it...

Smurf's solution? Build the Bell Bay pulp mill for sure. And cease forever the export of unprocessed woodchips, logs or anything else that hasn't been valued added within the state. That will both rein in the out of control forestry industry (to the point that it can rely largely on plantations) and actually create some useful wealth from the mill in the process. Trouble is, the damn greens are too blinkered fighting the mill and fail to realise that if successful then it's look out forests here comes another scale up.  

As for the Devils, let's just say the disease was first noted in the NE and that forestry is really the only activity that happens there unless you count a few farms, a century old hydro scheme and some disused mines. Nothing proven but if it's chemicals then the source would be either forestry or farming rather than heavy industry.

One criticism of forestry that I don't agree with though is about effects on rainfall. It might stack up as an argument in the eastern parts of the state but it doesn't stack up on the West Coast given the westerly wind direction. Nor is it likely to have caused a drought across most of the country. That argument is just a convenient one that isn't scientifically based IMO and I'll back forestry on that one dispite my overall dislike of the industry. 

As for me, someone's getting me a few tonnes of firewood from one of the piles before it gets incinerated. I figure it's better for me to burn it for heat thus saving some other resource (ie electricity) since the wood is going to get burnt anyway. 4 tonnes should turn up in the driveway about Easter time in return for some $.


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 February 2008)

explod said:


> Walking half a kilometer to the shops to get groceries instead of taking the car saves (envioronmentally) the equivalent of about 500 plastic shopping bags.   The big one for global warming is to leave the car in the garage.



My personal expectation looking at how people _acually_ go about their lives (as opposed to what is theoretically possible) is that banning plastic bags will lead to an increase in car use.

Think about it and I doubt you'll come to any other conclusion. That impulse purchase at lunchtime, that bit of "if we get time" shopping on the way back from a walk. Nobody's likely to carry a bag for these things - they'll come back later with the car instead.

Even for me personally, I have to say that if I've got to carry around a load of bulky bags for an hour whilst going for a walk when I might not need them all then I just won't bother. Walk home and drive back to the shop instead is far easier in the real world and it's what most will do.

That's not to say we should waste plastic but properly disposed of in landfill the bags aren't really a problem anyway (plastic is intentionally added to landfills as a sealant and stabiliser - it's one of the better things to have in there). End result if we ban them is likely to be more CO2 IMO.


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Tassie Devils problems.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/02/2152839.htm

I'm involved at work in a project relating to the Devils. Actually, there are quite a lot of different groups doing things now. 

No prizes for guessing that the one I'm involved with is an "electric" solution to the problem. But it's all pretty safe (hopefully) and to be honest looks like the only chance of creating a segregated wild population of healthy Devils.

Giving them an electric shock has been tried before as a means of creating isolated populations but it doesn't work. They don't react like a human and back off and run away. They just keep jumping up and down shocking themselves on the electrified mat rather than backing off as was expected. A nice and simple idea but it doesn't work.

I can't say much about what has been found to work for reasons of confidentiality but what I will say is that this is a means of keeping the Devils "fenced in" to a large area and it's a non-shock technical solution connected to the grid. It also makes use of existing engineering structures built for other purposes.

This will be used to create a non-captive separate population of disease free Devils if all goes to plan. Since these devils won't be able to go within 25m or so of any Devils outside the area that should keep the disease away (hopefully) thus maintaining a decent number of healthy Devils that can be used to breed from.


----------



## 2020hindsight (2 February 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> Giving them an electric shock has been tried before as a means of creating isolated populations but it doesn't work. They don't react like a human and back off and run away. They just keep jumping up and down shocking themselves on the electrified mat rather than backing off as was expected.



well I've learnt something today..
Tassie Devils are sado masochists 

Sado masochism means never having to say you're sorry, btw .
Good luck with it. 

PS kinda on thread mods, - global warming - critters - etcetc 

PS THink like the taser manufacturers - try 100kV maybe  - then 200 etc .


----------



## Tysonboss1 (3 February 2008)

explod said:


> Walking half a kilometer to the shops to get groceries instead of taking the car saves (envioronmentally) the equivalent of about 500 plastic shopping bags.   The big one for global warming is to leave the car in the garage.
> 
> Can we start to get this message across or is it the too hard basket.   Don't get me wrong, I am against the plastic bags also.




I saw some reserch that pointed out that because of our energy intensive farming and food prcessing industries,... If you do walk to the shops then it will release more carbon from the calories you have to eat than you would have had to put in your fuel tank.


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 February 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> Giving them an electric shock has been tried before as a means of creating isolated populations but it doesn't work. They don't react like a human and back off and run away. They just keep jumping up and down shocking themselves on the electrified mat rather than backing off as was expected. A nice and simple idea but it doesn't work.



I should point out that this was proper research in a controlled manner in relation to establishing a "safe" diesease free population of devils. It wasn't a backyard experiment etc and didn't cause harm to the devils involved.


----------



## wayneL (3 February 2008)

wayneL said:


> FYI
> 
> Central China is having the coldest and snowiest winter in decades.
> 
> ...




It worked! Stopped the snow just 10 miles north of Chelt.


----------



## explod (3 February 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> I saw some reserch that pointed out that because of our energy intensive farming and food prcessing industries,... If you do walk to the shops then it will release more carbon from the calories you have to eat than you would have had to put in your fuel tank.




Yep, and agree with all the following posts.  The plastic bags, the walking, whatever we do the situation will in my view change little.

What can we do to change attititudes towards the big issues/ cars versus public transport/ coal versus wind, wave, thermal.   population control and reduction.   

These mayl be the physical answers, but the biggest question ..WHAT ACTION CAN WE TAKE TO BEGIN TO SHAPE ACCEPTANCE OF LETTING GO OF THE CONSUMER INSTINCT.

First obvious would be education leading to change in government direction..maybe????


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 February 2008)

wayneL said:


> It worked! Stopped the snow just 10 miles north of Chelt.



Lol -wayne -OK you can stop now then ! 



Smurf1976 said:


> I should point out that this was proper research in a controlled manner in relation to establishing a "safe" diesease free population of devils. It wasn't a backyard experiment etc and didn't cause harm to the devils involved.



Lol - hey Smurf - I don't think we were about to accuse you of trying to electrocute em


----------



## 2020hindsight (3 February 2008)

explod said:


> Yep, and agree with all the following posts.  The plastic bags, the walking, whatever we do the situation will in my view change little.
> 
> What can we do to change attititudes towards the big issues/ cars versus public transport/ coal versus wind, wave, thermal.   population control and reduction.
> 
> ...



jese explod spot on - education about the environment is so important - some schools go there, some are too busy stopping the boys sticking pencils and things into the goirls - .. 

And on the subject of setting an example as a nation etc 
Aus is getting there IMO. - at least we're admitting there's a problem.  
and whether it's CO2 or smog or plastic bags or polystyrene or planting trees or dioxins or etcetc - we're becoming aware that the planet is dying around us.  The ozone layer problems were fixed by quick decisive intervention for instance.

But If I were the Mother of Nature
And my world was a breaking shell
and someone was pouring black oil on my birds
and poisoning slowly the well
and deserts were growing like wildfire
and wildfres were burning like hell
I'd be just a tiddy wee bit concerned
and I'd probbly opt to sell.....

or make a new pact to clean up my act
- this dome, my home, where I love to roam- 
and help to make patient well.


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Lol - hey Smurf - I don't think we were about to accuse you of trying to electrocute em



Thank heavens. 

I'd be worried for their future if it depended on being electrocuted judging by the headline on the Mercury today. Yep, it's about the drought, climate change and power shortages.  

It's a tad premature though - there's still quite a few rabbits left to pull out of the Hydro's hat yet before I get that cold bath - but it will soften the public up for some of the more drastic ways to keep the system going. 

And yes, the article does blame climate change as do, perhaps surprisingly, the Liberals.


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Surely the Forestry (with of course the Premier's full backing) are bordering on envoironmental vandalism there?



Oh heck. Or should that be HEC. It seems Premier Lennon might just have a bit more power, political, electric and it seems spiritual, than we thought.

"We need rain and we need it bad..." that was him yesterday.

And today? Well let's just say it's raining...


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 February 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> Oh heck. Or should that be HEC. It seems Premier Lennon might just have a bit more power, political, electric and it seems spiritual, than we thought.
> 
> "We need rain and we need it bad..." that was him yesterday.
> 
> And today? Well let's just say it's raining...



lol - straight talk! - SPOKEN LOUD AND CLEAR ! - THATs what God likes 
(He's getting a bit hard of hearing maybe )

PS as mentioned before, timing has a lot to do with outcome of rain dance.


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 February 2008)

Well I'm told that the east coast of Tas is pretty much flooded now. Thanks Paul. Next time perhaps specify _where_ we want the rain to fall - preferably into the storages that need it and not flooding out coastal towns.


----------



## numbercruncher (9 February 2008)

Throw em in Jail, I agree, Send the whalers with them 




> Jail politicians who ignore climate science: Suzuki
> 
> David Suzuki has called for political leaders to be thrown in jail for ignoring the science behind climate change.
> 
> ...




http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=290513


----------



## wayneL (9 February 2008)

At last someone places in juxtaposition the economy and the environment.

Though I stick to my contention it is the holistic view of the environment we should be focusing on, not  the inconclusive science of AGW.


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 February 2008)

wayneL said:


> At last someone places in juxtaposition the economy and the environment.
> 
> Though I stick to my contention it is the holistic view of the environment we should be focusing on, not  the inconclusive science of AGW.




wayne, I don't think you can say that Gore is an extremist any more, when Suzuki goes the extra yards and wants pollies jailed for not listening!

:topic  off topic with respect to warming - but sorta relevant in that the Tassie Devils are almost certainly a victim of some man made disease - 

and agreeing with your point that fixing the environment with cost dollars...  (and/or the problem has partially arisen from the chase for dollars)

THis was Johnny Howard's reaction to the proposal to spend real money to help the Tassie Devils 

  John Howard laughs at the plight of the tassie devil


----------



## wayneL (9 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> wayne, I don't think you can say that Gore is an extremist any more, when Suzuki goes the extra yards and wants pollies jailed for not listening!




I'll forgive Suzuki's muppetry on AGW because as a zoologist, he knows SFA about climate; and he does other great environmental work. He is multidimensional, rather than a single issue, vested interest zealot with ulterior motives like Al Bore.


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> :topic  off topic with respect to warming - but sorta relevant in that the Tassie Devils are almost certainly a victim of some man made disease -



Agreed though I think it now spreads devil to devil without the need for ongoing chemical exposure. 3 likely sources come to mind as the original trigger looking at the map and noting where it started (NE Tas). All those sources are man-made chemical related.


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 February 2008)

Here's a summary of Prof Garnaut's interim report.
He's the one who the Govt are going to base their short term goals on.
The implied accusation at Bali was that Aus was going to crawl out from - or back down from - their proclaimations of global concern ( after all it was only a couple of weeks after the election). - and hide behind an academics report.  The implication of the criticism was that the Govt were playing for time , and giving it to a "tame expert". 

Turns out he wants , not 60% by 2050 - but 90% !! 

Penny Wong has been forced to say - 60% will do quite nicely thank you 

But the goal for year2020 is still to be defined, and looks like he will recommend at least 20%. 

proposals for ETS to follow (emissions trading scheme)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/21/2169028.htm


> Aust 'most vulnerable' to climate change: Garnaut
> Posted 4 hours 27 minutes ago
> Updated 3 hours 8 minutes ago
> 
> ...


----------



## treefrog (21 February 2008)

> Global-warming is a long-term issue. Human effects are the cause of about 5% - the other 95% is natural



. 

this is a little out of date - '06 I think and of debatable accuracy

does anyone have up to date "unbiased" proportions

what comes to mind is the risk we spend big on the man made aspects but see little difference - kevvy 0'sevvy is having second thoughts I suspect - welcome to govt I suppose

wonders about the economy going into a tailspin from the costs

oh well, if we must we must - if the market won't go up just keep things short!


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 February 2008)

treefrog said:


> 1.  this is a little out of date - '06 I think and of debatable accuracy -  does anyone have up to date "unbiased" proportions
> 
> 2. what comes to mind is the risk we spend big on the man made aspects but see little difference - kevvy 0'sevvy is having second thoughts I suspect - welcome to govt I suppose
> 
> ...



1. tf, well the difference between the red line and the green line is man made (according to IPCC - as per David Attenborough's youtube) 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9ob9WdbXx0

2, 3, and 4. Listening to Prof Garnaut on ABC, he emphasises  that the cost of acting now is a fraction of what it will be if we delay.


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 February 2008)

Just on that point ..
"mid latitude wind patterns / storm patterns moving poleward"
a strictly amateur observation, but has anyone noticed how 
a) the highs south around the bight seem to be getting further south, and 
b) so too the intense lows causing the rain off qld seem to be creeping down the coast 

You'd have to assume that Tassie is missing out on the roaring 40's (?) - hence on the rain.  

http://www.metservice.co.nz/default/index.php?alias=month_feature_july_2007



> The subtropical ridge.  As far as New Zealand is concerned the character of the weather for each season is determined by the position of the subtropical ridge.  This is the zone (in yellow on these maps) that divides the trade winds of tropics apart from the ‘roaring 40s’ of the southern Ocean.  It marks the path taken by the HIGH pressure systems that occasionally can be seen tracking across our daily weather maps.  This zone is dry and sunny zone and wherever it gets stuck it brings droughts and bushfire weather.
> 
> The average sea level pressure systems in July from http://geography.uoregon.edu  The red line is the Intertropical Convergence zone.  Note how the subtropical ridge hugs Australia, allowing the westerlies of the Roaring 40s to visit New Zealand
> The average sea level pressure systems in January from http://geography.uoregon.edu  The red line is the Intertropical Convergence zone.  Note how the subtropical ridge has shifted south into the Australian Bight, and has more latitude to wander across New Zealand.
> ...



http://geography.uoregon.edu/envchange/clim_animations/gifs/hgt500winds_web.gif


----------



## 2020hindsight (21 February 2008)

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/synoptic.jsp
Here are isobar maps for today and next week - (a big contrast btw) - but in each case the highs are way way south - and  NZ and Tassie will miss the roaring 40's next week you'd think.


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 February 2008)

What? The wind's going to stop too?!!!

First the whales ran out so had to stop using them.  
Then importing coal became unreliable and too expensive.
Then oil got expensive too.
Then the rivers were placed off limits.
Then we couldn't see through all the wood smoke so had to stop that.
Then it stopped raining. 
And now the wind is going to stop too.

Looks like we're doomed to shiver in the dark down here no matter what we try.  

Not to worry though, there's always a cause for optimism. Just build the power plants somewhere else...

http://www.hydro.com.au/home/Corpor..._package_to_showcase_Tasmanian_innovation.htm

PS off topic but my new cat that I've had since about 10:30 tonight has settled down next the keyboard. Just turned up on the doorstep (literally) and seems quite friendly. Looks like I'm buying cat food tomorrow morning...


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 February 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> Not to worry though, there's always a cause for optimism. Just build the power plants somewhere else...
> 
> http://www.hydro.com.au/home/Corpor..._package_to_showcase_Tasmanian_innovation.htm






> Hydro Tasmania Consulting has been awarded a contract to supply and construct a suite of six mini hydro plants for Melbourne Water.




wow, sweet!.  



> the $25 million contract .....
> 
> producing some 40-gigawatt hours annually, which is equivalent to the electricity for around 5 000 homes and will reduce up to 52,400 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions each year.




just doing some sums here smurf - but $25 mill - for 5000 homes 
$5,000 per home.  - I hope those 5000 families ( = 1 suburb) appreciate it.
http://www.geelongaustralia.com.au/library/pdf/5053/36.pdf

(ok - hypothetical families if you prefer).



> PS off topic but my new cat that I've had since about 10:30 tonight has settled down next the keyboard. Just turned up on the doorstep (literally) and seems quite friendly. Looks like I'm buying cat food tomorrow morning...



yep - new animals / people just keep on being born - opening their eyes to the world for the first time, ignorant of any probems - real or imagined whatever - unable to comprehend even why or how they got here - life goes on - kittens play - babies laugh - funny isn't it   Gotta think of that one over a cup of tea (too early for a philosophical beer). 

PS youth hopefully holds the key (but at least we can give em a fighting chance)


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 February 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> just doing some sums here smurf - but $25 mill - for 5000 homes
> $5,000 per home.  - I hope those 5000 families ( = 1 suburb) appreciate it.
> http://www.geelongaustralia.com.au/library/pdf/5053/36.pdf



Renewable energy, with the exception of biomass, is capital intensive.

If it were built today, the Tasmanian hydro system would cost about $22,000 per person (that is, total cost divided by the total population of Tas). Even if the power produced for business use was excluded and it were scaled down just to supply homes then it's still over $10,000 per house. And that doesn't include transmission and distribution or even meters.

The only thing that makes the finances work is inflation. Build it when inflation is low but rising and it works quite nicely. Get that bit reversed and it becomes a massive financial liability.

Building renewable energy, particularly hydro, and making it profitable is an exercise in market timing as much as it is in engineering.


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 February 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> Building renewable energy,... is an exercise in market timing as much as it is in engineering.



Does that mean to avoid making charcoal we have to learn the cha cha?

PS I know how to mark time m8, - but market timing i'm lousy at


----------



## 2020hindsight (25 February 2008)

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2171917.htm
Damned if I can tell if this is tongue in cheek - 
or more accurately "a dollar each way" 

excerpt:-



> *The science of climate change is, I'll admit, quite compelling*. And there are a few home truths that are simply inescapable. For example, the environment is a profoundly important part of human life. Without it, we would have nowhere to live.
> 
> However - and it's a big however - environmentalism itself is causing a schism between two emerging types of people. Either you are on the side of the righteous, who only strictly adhere to using the half-flush button when they wee, seek to power their homes using the sun and don't bathe adequately, or you're on the side of the damned, who refuse to give up their four wheel drives, leave the lights on while they sleep and who champion the cause of personal nuclear reactors in the home.
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (25 February 2008)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/02/25/2171204.htm


> Desperate times call for tough leadership
> By David Shearman
> Posted Mon Feb 25, 2008 9:12am AEDT
> 
> ...


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 February 2008)

I saw an interesting program about the sustainability of cities, focusing on the greenhouse emissions issue, on SBS tonight.

Bottom line is that only one out of all the commentators and audience "gets it" about the oil situation. The rest seemed to agree with the solutions but totally missed the point of what they are supposed to be achieving. Either that or they're too terrified to admit to the real problem and are using "climate change" as a clever mask for what is really "using less oil".

If climate change was the real issue then they'd have focused on what heats the shower, not how people get to work once they've had it.


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 February 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> If climate change was the real issue then they'd have focused on what heats the shower, not how people get to work once they've had it.




well m8, the day will come we'll all work from home - in our pyjamas or whatever - shoes off, toes enjoying glorious feedom - 
 and it won't even matter if we have a shower or not. 

(In exactly the same way that you can bet on the stock exchange like this - in your dressing gown if you wish - much more convenient than having to meet the dress code at the casino  )

PS I eventually discovered that that plasma screen was a 50 inch - that it is 560 watts , and that's considerably more than the 42" (but much less than what I claimed b4).   Still my friend tells me he wishes he'd bought the 42" rather than the 50" lol.  "I can't move in my flamin room without running into the damned thing - AND I get a sore neck watching the tennis"


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 March 2008)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/11/2185737.htm?section=justin



> Most Australians support Kyoto: poll
> Posted 55 minutes ago
> 
> A new poll has found that 7 per cent of Australians still oppose Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's act to ratify the Kyoto protocol to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
> ...


----------



## Aussiejeff (11 March 2008)

Very interesting announcement today by the QLD Government...

_"Queensland homes using solar power will be paid more for the excess energy they generate for the electricity grid.

Under the state government's Solar Bonus Scheme, the "feed-in tariff" for solar powered homes *will be boosted to 44 cents per kilowatt hour.*"_

Full article in the Brisbane Times here:

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/new...for-solar-power/2008/03/11/1205125871035.html

OK Brumby ... ON YER HORSE, VARMINT, an' GIT US VICS THA SAME DEAL!!!



Good to see some steps in the right direction, anyways.


----------



## tigerboi (11 March 2008)

Global warming?? dribble..the UK just had its coldest winter since 1966,42 years,aslong as ive been alive..the ice in greenland is the biggest in 15 years.this is a UN  run campaign through Al Gore.failed politician looking for a stage to sprout his rubbish.i find it amazing so called smart people believe an ex politician on science,pseudo at the best.wake up to this mesmerising "religion" for what it is.utter dribble that 50% of scientists disagree with...tb.
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21543358-5001024,00.html
even this guy knows its all fake!


----------



## derty (11 March 2008)

It's all about the long term trends tigerboi, not the spurious outliers. Not unlike the market.


----------



## Kimosabi (11 March 2008)

tigerboi said:


> Global warming?? dribble..the UK just had its coldest winter since 1966,42 years,aslong as ive been alive..the ice in greenland is the biggest in 15 years.this is a UN run campaign through Al Gore.failed politician looking for a stage to sprout his rubbish.i find it amazing so called smart people believe an ex politician on science,pseudo at the best.wake up to this mesmerising "religion" for what it is.utter dribble that 50% of scientists disagree with...tb.
> http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21543358-5001024,00.html
> even this guy knows its all fake!



Yep, Global Warming is just an excuse to create a tax for an essential gas for life on the planet.

What they should be doing is taxing pollution, but the priority seems to be destroying the planet as quickly as possible.

Turns out Sunspot activity has decreased dramatically and apparently the sun is 15-20% dimmer. I'm not sure if the the dimness measurement is a space based measurement or earth based. If it is earth based, I'd be blaming these guys for spraying whatever crap they are spraying into the air, apparently a combination of Aluminium and Barium and a host of other nasty's from Rain based analysis etc






















There are a stack more pictures here ==> http://imageevent.com/firesat/strangedaysstrangeskies?z=3&c=4&n=1&m=-1&w=4&x=0&p=14

Strange lines in the sky over Esperance before the bird die off. They forgot to mention all the bird die off hundreds of km's away from any lead mines or transportation at the same time.



And one laid over Perth in December



By the way these things aren't contrails because contrails don't hang around for 1 - 2 hours and then dissipate into a smoggy cirrus type cloud.

Anyway, my prediction for winter in the southern hemisphere is that we are going too have a FREEZING COLD, wet winter, and I'm even predicting Perth may get snowed on this winter. If it was good enough for Saudi Arabia to get the first snow in recorded history during their last winter, I reckon it's good enough for little old Perth to get some snow this winter...


----------



## chops_a_must (11 March 2008)

Kimosabi said:


> They forgot to mention all the bird die off hundreds of km's away from any lead mines or transportation at the same time.



Birds do fly...


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> well m8, the day will come we'll all work from home - in our pyjamas or whatever - shoes off, toes enjoying glorious feedom -
> and it won't even matter if we have a shower or not.
> 
> (In exactly the same way that you can bet on the stock exchange like this - in your dressing gown if you wish - much more convenient than having to meet the dress code at the casino  )



Just one problem. Productive work, as opposed to speculation and administration, can't generally be done sitting at home. The economy's headed to hell in a handbasket if that happens in which case public concern over climate change will likely disappear in a flash.

IMO peak oil will in 5 or maybe 10 years time be the mainstream issue that climate change is today with climate change itself very much in the back seat.


----------



## Roadskolar (11 March 2008)

Just another perspective which mainstream never mentions.

http://seoblackhat.com/2007/03/04/global-warming-on-mars-pluto-triton-and-jupiter/

It puts a different slant on things.

A major aspect of GW that is man made is the fuel inefficiency of our motor vehicles.  We still have the same fuel consumption as we did when vehicles first hit the road just about.  We sent men to the moon, developed the Atomic bomb and we still do 30mpg for the same weight to power ratio just about!  Who is being conned here?

The second group that doesn't want fuel efficiency is who?

Governments.  They would lose too much in taxes.

Who is being conned here?

Roadskolar


----------



## Kimosabi (11 March 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> Just one problem. Productive work, as opposed to speculation and administration, can't generally be done sitting at home. The economy's headed to hell in a handbasket if that happens in which case public concern over climate change will likely disappear in a flash.
> 
> IMO peak oil will in 5 or maybe 10 years time be the mainstream issue that climate change is today with climate change itself very much in the back seat.



Peak Oil is another scam, in ONE oil field in Alaska, it has enough Oil/Gas to supply the United States for 200 years.

They apparently have these huge pumps that pump the Natural Gas back into the ground and the existing Alaskan Oil Fields were meant to have run out 10 years ago, but the fields are still pumping out oil/gas at the same pressure they did 30 years ago.

The Russians are apparently world leaders in finding abiotic oil, basically the Russians are now finding oil in areas where there shouldn't be any oil.

When they analyse the hydrocarbons that are coming out of the deep sea vents, they have the same carbon signature as supposed Fossil Fuels.

And then we have a look at all of the people who have been bought out or have had 'accidents' who have developed alternatives to fossil fuel based energy systems, you have to wonder, what is the agenda here.

Now must be time for a quote from Henry A. Kissinger, "Control the oil and you can control entire Continents. Control food and you control people."

hhhmmm, where have I seen articles about food shortages caused by using food crops as hydrocarbon fuel alternatives...


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 March 2008)

> A new poll has found that 7 per cent of Australians still oppose Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's act to ratify the Kyoto protocol to cut greenhouse gas emissions.



there's that magic figure 7% again.
And I notice Johnny Howard still saying (speeches in US) that we shouldn't have signed Kyoto.  - 

so both Johnny and Brendan can claim to have something in common with 7% of Aussies.


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 March 2008)

Kimosabi said:


> Peak Oil is another scam, in ONE oil field in Alaska, it has enough Oil/Gas to supply the United States for 200 years.
> 
> They apparently have these huge pumps that pump the Natural Gas back into the ground and the existing Alaskan Oil Fields were meant to have run out 10 years ago, but the fields are still pumping out oil/gas at the same pressure they did 30 years ago.
> 
> ...



1. A scam maybe. But one that has played out to the letter in Australia, New Zealand, US, Canada, Mexico, UK...

2. Which field in Alaska is that? Surely not Prudhoe Bay where production peaked in 1989 and has since steadily declined just as expected?

3. Natural gas reinjection is nothing new. Inject bascially anything into an oil field and you'll maintain pressure and production. Until, that is, it very suddenly collapses as occurred in (for example) Oman and now Mexico. Much like how an aerosol can keeps spraying until it's empty then it's all over in an instant.

4. Abiotic oil. Nice theory but I wonder why it is that in the real world oil the oil fields we have are NOT refilling according to the theory. Far too many have already stopped flowing or flow nothing but water. It might well happen in 1000 or 1 million years but that's no real use to us now. Oil under the ocean is again nothing new - problem is how to get it out.

5. Agreed though about people being bought out. The auto and oil industries make an outright fortune from keeping the status quo going as long as possible. They have every incentive to keep spreading the word that there's plenty of oil, climate change doesn't exist and so on. The geologists, scientists etc are no match for such a mighty force as far as convincing the public and governments is concerned.

Who do you believe? A group of geologists that have spent their life finding oil and say it's getting scarce? Or major corporations where the CEO's next bonus depends on maintaining the status quo? I know who my money's on and they've thus far been right in more than half of all major oil producing countries.

WHY is it over $100 a barrel, just as the geologists etc expected, and not the $20 or less that the multinationals, oil barrons and others were so confidently predicting earlier this decade?

All that doesn't matter too much though. If it keeps doubling in price every year or two then the _usefullness_ of oil to the ordinary person has peaked regardless of the cause. If the world does get to 100 million barrels per day of production capacity then it won't help one bit if the price is $1000 per barrel - Joe Public won't be using it either way and for practical purposes oil _consumption_ will be well past peak for the majority of people.

Take a look at what happened in Bass Strait, North Sea, Texas, Alaska, US or just about anywhere else that has oil fields that have been in production for decades. Now tell me why that happened if peak oil isn't real...:

I note that world production has remained essentially flat (bumping up and down) since 2005, nicely defying the economists and other optimistic types despite a frenzy of drilling. It's exactly the plateau in the face of increasing effort predicted by the peakers before the decline. Theory is one thing, but actual events thus far aren't going as the optimists keep forecasting.


----------



## derty (11 March 2008)

Kimosabi said:


> Turns out Sunspot activity has decreased dramatically and apparently the sun is 15-20% dimmer. I'm not sure if the the dimness measurement is a space based measurement or earth based. If it is earth based, I'd be blaming these guys for spraying whatever crap they are spraying into the air, apparently a combination of Aluminium and Barium and a host of other nasty's from Rain based analysis etc




The decrease in sunspot activity is due to the sun being in between major sunspot cycles. There has been talk that the next cycle is overdue and we may be heading into a new Maunder Minimum however the next cycle has recently shown signs of commencing and if so has appeared on time as predicted. 
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20080104_sunspot.html

I'm pretty sure the brightness variation between solar maximum and minimum is much less than 1%. The amount of solar wind and cosmic radiation ejected during a solar maximum is much more than during a minimum however.

How do you relate the vapour trails to the dimming? Surely if this is responsible for a 15-20% dimming they would be a common occurrence over much of the globe.


----------



## Kimosabi (12 March 2008)

derty said:


> How do you relate the vapour trails to the dimming? Surely if this is responsible for a 15-20% dimming they would be a common occurrence over much of the globe.



Because if they spray enough crap in the air, it's going to block the amount of sunlight reaching the planet...


----------



## chops_a_must (12 March 2008)

Roadskolar said:


> Just another perspective which mainstream never mentions.
> 
> http://seoblackhat.com/2007/03/04/global-warming-on-mars-pluto-triton-and-jupiter/
> 
> ...




It's known as the Khazzoom-Brookes postulate:




> Khazzoom-Brookes postulate
> 
> The Khazzoom-Brookes postulate, first put forward by the US economist Harry Saunders in 1992, says that energy efficiency improvements that, on the broadest considerations, are economically justified at the microlevel lead to higher levels of energy consumption at the macrolevel than in the absence of such improvements. It argues against the views of conservationists - those promoting energy efficiency as a means of reducing energy consumption- that one can identify every little benefit from each individual act of energy efficiency and then aggregate them all to produce a macroeconomic total. In essence it adopts a macroeconomic (top down) approach rather than the microeconomic (bottom up) approach used by conservationists.
> 
> http://technology.open.ac.uk/eeru/staff/horace/kbpotl.htm




Simply put, energy efficiency is only used to make more stuff, power bigger cars i.e. SUV's and travel longer distances.



Smurf1976 said:


> 3. Natural gas reinjection is nothing new. Inject bascially anything into an oil field and you'll maintain pressure and production. Until, that is, it very suddenly collapses as occurred in (for example) Oman and now Mexico. Much like how an aerosol can keeps spraying until it's empty then it's all over in an instant.



Christ you come up with some crack pot arguments Kimo. Most people don't realise that gas production has a completely different production profile to oil.  It's production is constant, until the end, without warning, it virtually becomes zero very quickly.

I don't believe the US would have given up its economic advantage in the 70s, with oil, if there were all these magical sources out there. Such a counter-intuitive argument anyway you want to look at it.


----------



## chops_a_must (12 March 2008)

Kimosabi said:


> Because if they spray enough crap in the air, it's going to block the amount of sunlight reaching the planet...




Right... so they are putting it into the gravitational field, rather than into the atmosphere like your photos and arguments explain?


----------



## Kimosabi (12 March 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> Christ you come up with some crack pot arguments Kimo.



From you Chops, I'll take that as a compliment.

I'd be interested to see how you explain away the following videos, that is of course, if you can actually be bothered to watch them...

*Oil is not a Fossil Fuel*



*Lindsey Williams - The Oil non-crisis (short)*



*Lindsey Williams - The Oil non-crisis (Full Video) -* http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3340274697167011147

*President of Shell, Plenty of Oil?*



*Abiotic Oil*



Ignorance isn't going to be bliss...


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 March 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> Simply put, energy efficiency is only used to make more stuff, power bigger cars i.e. SUV's and travel longer distances.






Roadskolar said:


> .. fuel inefficiency of our motor vehicles.  We still have the same fuel consumption as we did when vehicles first hit the road just about.  We sent men to the moon, developed the Atomic bomb and we still do 30mpg for the same weight to power ratio just about!  Who is being conned here?



roadskolar and chops and smurf
I agree
In the 70's there was an oil crisis - sudden increase in petrol price - and US went to smaller cars.  
Since then, we've been conned into bigger cars again it seems.
And we'll have to learn the same old lesson over again. 
Trouble is the price of petrol is going up gradually, and the message loses its dramatic effect. 
But give it a few years 

In the meantime, Users must be made to pay - bigtime. 
Pushing a 6 or 8 cylinder car around when a 4 cylinder would suffice - is just blatantly stealing from the grandkids.

PS I notice Chaney is in Saudi "encouraging them" to increase production so that the price of oil comes down.  They could care less about long term planning (oil reserves, or pollution, or GW etc).  Just as long as the sun keeps going round the earth each day


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 March 2008)

Kimosabi said:


> From you Chops, I'll take that as a compliment.
> 
> I'd be interested to see how you explain away the following videos, that is of course, if you can actually be bothered to watch them...
> 
> ...




I don't have any speakers hooked up to the computer at present but I will watch the videos when I do.

Just one thing though. We ALREADY have an oil problem - it's at $108 per barrel, well beyond the point at which it is an economic fuel for anything other than transport. The debate is thus not about whether or not we have a problem, but how serious it is, how long it will last and what to do about it.

It's like debating whether or not a building will ever catch fire. Argue for years if you like but the debate ends the moment the alarm sounds and smoke appears. From that point on it's a question of what to do and how effective will that be at saving the building. If $108 per barrel, fuel shortages in various countries etc isn't smoke in this context then I don't know what is.


----------



## Roadskolar (13 March 2008)

Quote:
Khazzoom-Brookes postulate

The Khazzoom-Brookes postulate, first put forward by the US economist Harry Saunders in 1992, says that energy efficiency improvements that, on the broadest considerations, are economically justified at the microlevel lead to higher levels of energy consumption at the macrolevel than in the absence of such improvements. It argues against the views of conservationists - those promoting energy efficiency as a means of reducing energy consumption- that one can identify every little benefit from each individual act of energy efficiency and then aggregate them all to produce a macroeconomic total. In essence it adopts a macroeconomic (top down) approach rather than the microeconomic (bottom up) approach used by conservationists.

http://technology.open.ac.uk/eeru/st...ace/kbpotl.htm
Simply put, energy efficiency is only used to make more stuff, power bigger cars i.e. SUV's and travel longer distances.


The above reasoning(?) misses a couple of important points.  The primary one  being time.

Most folk do not want to travel longer distances.  The only occasion generally, folk are interested in travelling longer distances is when they are on holiday.  Other occasions, folk are too busy, as it's time inefficient.  How many folk would like to live in beautiful surrounds, very cheap to buy and only five hours from their work, shops and medical facilities?

Some may be able with their V16, 12ltr "**ckitMobil".  But then they either love paying speeding fines, or are on some delusional substance fed by mainstream marketing. 

History is replete with examples of how to manipulate folk.  The common denominators are, fear creation, then offer a solution.  It never stops working, it's true perpetual motion.  And yes, more than money is being made out of it.

So, back to the original question.  Who is being conned by the lack of fuel efficiency?

Roadskolar


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 March 2008)

I would certainly agree that greater efficiency in production pushes up consumption of the end product. That's economics 101.

Three classic examples of greater efficiency raising consumption.

Airlines. Rather than pocket the saving from cheaper fares, people now fly a LOT more than they did a decade or two ago. 20 years ago it was common to find teenagers who had _never_ been on a commercial airline flight. Now it's unusual to find anyone who hasn't flown somewhere quite recently or is planning to.

Even Hobart airport now has plenty of activity. A decade ago it was a few flights a day, nearly all of them to Melbourne. But now demand has increased so much that it's direct flights to most other capitals and there's enough demand to justify 2 or 3 to the same destination within an hour. 

Massive growh there fuelled almost entirely by cheap fares that enable a trip to Melbourne or Brisbane not just to watch sport or a concert but simply for the sake of it. Heck, even I'm contemplating the fact that I haven't flown anywhere for 9 months...

Computers. For those who get a new office computer every 3 or so years, have you noticed ANY significant difference in its performance since the year 2000? For most the answer would be no - all the increase in the computer's performance has been eaten up by less efficient use of it via the software.

Windows can't even start up on what 15 years ago would have been a massively powerful computer that could do just about everything a modern one can. The more computing power we cram into the box, the less efficiently we use it.

And lighting. Have you ever seen a space illuminated with ordinary bulbs to the same level that is taken for granted with fluorescent lighting? Almost certainly you haven't. As lighting became more efficient we simply used more of it to the point that the average fluoro lit room uses as much or more power than room of the same size lit with a bulb. Even a small office is typically 400 watts or more of fluoros - but you would never have installed the 2000 watts of incandescents needed to provide the same level of illumination. You'd have gone to 200 or 300 W at the most.


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 March 2008)

Anyone see the article on polar bears on Channel 7 tonight 

All those scientist-whor es who stood up and said that ..
"the Earth isn't warming", and 
"there were no polar bears in jeopardy - a mischievous use of a couple of photos etc"  
" only 4 have died " 
... they should be dragged out into the city square in chains and made to publicly apologise - and spend 10 years in "polar-bear-community-service".  

Numbers down (at least) 16% in 20 years and rapidly declining as the iceflows melt.  - constantly coming into town in Alaska etc looking for food.  When shot they are found to be skinny etc .  

One prediction is that the iceshelf up there could have melted in 50 years (the way it is going)


----------



## Aussiejeff (17 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Anyone see the article on polar bears on Channel 7 tonight
> 
> All those scientist-whor es who stood up and said that ..
> "the Earth isn't warming", and
> ...




Apparently there is a teeny-weeny possibility that the US financial markets could melt within the next 50 months (the way it is going) thus taking the rest of the world down with 'em. If that happens, environmental & ecological considerations will go right out the back door - the PB's will have even less hope .... along with a few other species.... 

*sigh*

I need to take a McHappy pill methinks.... all this gloom is becoming a tad overwhelming.
AJ


----------



## wayneL (17 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Anyone see the article on polar bears on Channel 7 tonight
> 
> All those scientist-whor es who stood up and said that ..
> "the Earth isn't warming", and
> ...



They're wh ores because they disagree with the AGW religion?

Can you substantiate the PB plight with science rather than here-say? 

I seem to recall that the ice sheet is back to normal this year. (IIRC, no links)


----------



## The Ferret (17 March 2008)

warming schwarming....


----------



## xyzedarteerf (17 March 2008)

George Carlin on Global Warning


----------



## wayneL (17 March 2008)

wayneL said:


> I seem to recall that the ice sheet is back to normal this year. (IIRC, no links)



http://network.nationalpost.com/np/...er-the-northern-sea-ice-is-back-corcoran.aspx


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 March 2008)

wayneL said:


> They're wh ores because they disagree with the AGW religion?
> 
> Can you substantiate the PB plight with science rather than here-say?
> 
> I seem to recall that the ice sheet is back to normal this year. (IIRC, no links)



wayne
you misquote me - but only on the margins.
I referred to scientists who were so groosly dumb as to even deny that the earth was warming (and there have even been a few of them).

As for the polar bears not being in jeapoardy (and other myths)
I posted this website previously (but not very directly - gotta feeling you have to find the final link from that website ...

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=244778&highlight=myths#post244778

but here goes ... 
If this gets straight through, then you're home and hosed...
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11656

Otherwise ... start here 
http://www.greenhouse.nsw.gov.au/what_is_climate_change/global_trends

then under FAQ'a there is this 
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462



> So for those who are not sure what to believe, here is our round-up of the 26 most common climate myths and misconceptions.
> 
> There is also a guide to assessing the evidence. In the articles we've included lots of links to primary research and major reports for those who want to follow through to the original sources.
> 
> ...




There's one there (almost 12 months old )


> Climate myths: Polar bear numbers are increasing
> 17:00 16 May 2007
> 
> Polar bears have become the poster children of global warming. The bears spend most or all of the year living and hunting on sea ice, and the accelerating shrinking of this ice appears to pose a serious threat. The issue has even become politically sensitive.
> ...




The point of the channel 7 TV show in Aus which you equate to "hearsay"- (I assume you have similar TV shows in UK) - they pointed out it is getting worse much faster than anticipated. 

and coming to work . I heard that the ice was melting faster as well (ABC's AM )


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 March 2008)

Aussiejeff said:


> Apparently there is a teeny-weeny possibility that the US financial markets could melt within the next 50 months (the way it is going) thus taking the rest of the world down with 'em. If that happens, environmental & ecological considerations will go right out the back door



Strongly agreed. Public concern over the environment tends to peak when the economy peaks in my observation.


----------



## explod (17 March 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> Strongly agreed. Public concern over the environment tends to peak when the economy peaks in my observation.




Disagree, particularly in the US things are going to be so bad that people will have to grow thier own food again, good for the environment.   

The petrol guzzlers will be idle because there will be little fuel and no money to buy it anyway, good for the environment.    

Due to drought and lack of funds to continue to support those countries that are surviving on full aid now, will perish unfortunately, good for the environment.

But yes, in the shorter term agree.


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> and coming to work . I heard that the ice was melting faster as well (ABC's AM )



http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2008/s2191015.htm


> Glaciers shrinking at record rate:
> AM - Monday, 17 March , 2008  08:10:00
> Reporter: Barbara Miller
> 
> ...






> Barbara Miller reportsBARBARA MILLER: This is one of a seemingly never-ending series of studies warning of the dire consequences of climate change.
> 
> And the United Nations Environment Programme says it can't be ignored:
> 
> ...


----------



## wayneL (17 March 2008)

Ummm

That was two years ago.

China has just had the coldest winter for decades. I'd like to see the current results... and results going forward from here.

Are climatologists like economists and only good at extrapolation of the most recent trend? Seems so.


----------



## The Ferret (17 March 2008)

The problem is that only the pro-warming stuff makes its way into the media. Any scientist or report or study that questions the theory is not given equal airtime.... no airtime would be closer to it. And there are PLENTY of scientists who have serious reservations about the whole GW debate.


----------



## wayneL (17 March 2008)

The Ferret said:


> The problem is that only the pro-warming stuff makes its way into the media. Any scientist or report or study that questions the theory is not given equal airtime.... no airtime would be closer to it. And there are PLENTY of scientists who have serious reservations about the whole GW debate.




Worse - Any AGW dissent is treat as a religious heresy. It doesn't do much for the science at all.

I don't know why, but I keep thinking of Goebbels' remarks of a few years ago.


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 March 2008)

what the hell
will you blokes please admit that we (as the human species) can at least try to reduce our impact on the planet. 

but you are such confused gentlemen, I think I'm wasting my breath

PS They should legislate alternative energy options like this. 
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/02/080207-power-walking.html

PS wayne, I mean why are you asking me to prove anything about the plight of PB's  - you should already know.
for a card carrying greenie wayne, it would seem that you could give a damn about the PBs.


----------



## The Ferret (17 March 2008)

wayneL said:


> Worse - Any AGW dissent is treat as a religious heresy. It doesn't do much for the science at all.
> 
> I don't know why, but I keep thinking of Goebbels' remarks of a few years ago.




I agree... it's like a disease of the mind that has infected a large slice of the population.... Even all the rubbish that gets spruiked about like Earth Hour. It's a sham. Anyone who knows anything about power stations will tell you that turning lights and appliances off conserves NO power at all. Base load is still generated regardless of how many people have their lights on. Power stations don't change generation amount, they alter output to the grid. The amount of power generated remains the same.

This is common knowledge but it never gets a mention! The myth is just perpetuated by the media and the lefties..... God forbid someone ever dare to point out this well know fact.


----------



## The Ferret (17 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> what the hell
> will you blokes please admit that we (as the human species) can at least try to reduce our impact on the planet.
> 
> but you are such confused gentlemen, I think I'm wasting my breath
> ...




I cant help but notice that you seem to put down people who don't agree with you. "Scientist who res".. "confused gentlemen". No mate. We have our own opinions.

Whilst I dont agree with yours, I fully respect your right to have them. Please respect our right to have ours.


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 March 2008)

The Ferret said:


> I cant help but notice that you seem to put down people who don't agree with you. "Scientist *****s".. "confused gentlemen". No mate. We have our own opinions.
> 
> Whilst I dont agree with yours, I fully respect your right to have them. Please respect our right to have ours.



and yet again ferret 
join the queue of people who will benefit from the work the various card carrying greenies achieve - 

DESPITE the totally illogical resistance from the likes of you.


----------



## wayneL (17 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> what the hell
> will you blokes please admit that we (as the human species) can at least try to reduce our impact on the planet.



Not the current point. I have made that point repeatedly in this thread and is not at issue



2020hindsight said:


> but you are such confused gentlemen, I think I'm wasting my breath



Ad hominem. Shows a weakness of argument.



2020hindsight said:


> PS They should legislate alternative energy options like this.
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/02/080207-power-walking.html
> 
> PS wayne, I mean why are you asking me to prove anything about the plight of PB's  - you should already know.
> for a card carrying greenie wayne, it would seem that you could give a damn about the PBs.



Again, not the point at all. The current issue is whether the plight (or not as the case may be) is due to AGW. This seems to be in doubt and the waters have been muddied by preposterous sensationalism by the likes of Al Bore.

Actual unbiased science, as per usual, takes a back seat.


----------



## wayneL (17 March 2008)

BTW 2020, what are YOU doing for our furry friends?


----------



## The Ferret (17 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> ....DESPITE the totally illogical resistance from the likes of you....




Illogical to you, maybe. Just as your views are illogical to me. However, I respect your right to your views.... I don't get angry because not everyone agrees with me.... thats life. You need to "cool down" a bit


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 March 2008)

The Ferret said:


> Illogical to you, maybe. Just as your views are illogical to me. However, I respect your right to your views.... I don't get angry because not everyone agrees with me.... thats life. You need to "cool down" a bit



I'm ok !

and I'll continue to work for a planet that is 0.001 degree cooler for your grandkids - WHETHER OR NOT it is manmade..

btw, I'll let you explain to your grandkids why you weren't even prepared to try to reduce man made effects on the environment . 

and wayne  OBVIOUSLY sheesh
you will also clean up other pollution.

What's your objection to giving it the benefit of the doubt. ? 
seriously - no deflection of the argument - just give it a go ok. 

You seem to jeer when the world applauds Bali for instance.
a worldwide movement to recognise that man is exploiting this planet in an unsustainable manner ..?

To me that makes you (and ferret etc) extremely confused.  

PS try listening to David Attenborough  ( oh that's right he's confused in YOUR eyes) 

or David Suzuki (who you put up as a model, but then withdraw your support when you find he wants to put politicians in jail for NOT recogising the risk of global warming ) 

or Carl Sagan 
or  etc


----------



## wayneL (17 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> I'm ok !
> 
> and I'll continue to work for a planet that is 0.001 degree cooler for your grandkids - WHETHER OR NOT it is manmade..
> 
> ...




Sorry 2020, but this entire post is nonsense and a monumental straw man argument. Furthermore, it is a disingenuous misrepresentation of my stance on  just about every point you have raised here. The twisting of my argument is so grotesque, it is not even worth the dignity of counter-argument.

You should have a break for a few hours mate.


----------



## The Ferret (17 March 2008)

2020... once you start using personal slights, once you start trying to put people down or say they must be low iq etc.. once you do that, you lose the argument. If you believe in something mate then go ahead and argue the point... anything else detracts from what you have to say.

It also reveals your tender age.... most people learn this very early on.


----------



## wayneL (17 March 2008)

Yes, robust debate is one thing, even criticizing a behaviour can be tolerated, but direct ad hominem insult in quite another.


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 March 2008)

well wayne 
here are some quotes/ references to Suzuki on this thread.
Perhaps you can see why I'm confused at least. 

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=237706&highlight=suzuki#post237706



			
				wayne said:
			
		

> I'll tell you one educator who has my utmost respect - David Suzuki. That man walks the walk and has done for as long as I can remember. Where's his peace prize?




Then numbercruncher posted this link :-
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=257397&highlight=suzuki#post257397

http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=290513



			
				Suzuki said:
			
		

> Jail politicians who ignore climate science: Suzuki
> 
> David Suzuki has called for political leaders to be thrown in jail for ignoring the science behind climate change.




you respond with … 

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=257461&highlight=suzuki#post257461



			
				wayne said:
			
		

> I'll forgive Suzuki's muppetry on AGW because as a zoologist, he knows SFA about climate; and he does other great environmental work.




Are you saying you know more than him about GW?
or that you now prefer some other scientific opinion?


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 March 2008)

The Ferret said:


> It also reveals your tender age.... most people learn this very early on.



sorry daddy 
PS thanks for the compliment lol


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 March 2008)

PS I agree with him ! 

http://www.nationalpost.com/most_popular/story.html?id=290513


----------



## wayneL (17 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> well wayne
> here are some quotes/ references to Suzuki on this thread.
> Perhaps you can see why I'm confused at least.
> 
> ...



Not at all (thanks for destroying your own straw man argument BTW).

I do say however that there are climatologists who know more about climatology than a zoologist. At this point there are many dissenting voices in the field of climatology. There are many insurmountable hurdles... and downright contradictions in the AGW story to take it on board as a fact.

Meanwhile, while everyone is focusing on CO2, humans continue to pollute, rape and pillage the earth in a variety of other ways, which is being virtually ignored.

There are more pressing potential environmental catastrophes all around us. e Yet these receive virtually zero funding and attention, in comparison to AGW.

This is very very bad science IMO.


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 March 2008)

ferret
here's one for youngsters to charge their mobile phones ..
(all as per link I posted back there) 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/02/080207-power-walking.html


> Inspector Gadget, take note: Researchers have created a knee brace that converts the energy from a walker's stride into electricity.
> 
> Results from the device show that if the clumsy cartoon character wore a brace on each leg as he stumbled after his nemesis Dr. Claw, *he'd easily generate five watts of electricity. *
> 
> That's *enough juice to power ten cell phones at once*””or in the inspector's case, perhaps enough to keep his telescoping appendages functioning for an entire TV episode.


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 March 2008)

wayneL said:


> There are many insurmountable hurdles...



wayne, The only hurdle I see is the apathy in some cases, the totally empty rhetoric that the non-green lobby come up with, and the stubborn refusal of many to act. 

Are these insurmountable?  Fortunately, mankind is slowly pulling his head out of the sand and becoming a bit more aware on green issues.   (IMO). Fortunately in Aus at least, the people (and hence the politicians)  are becoming greener with every election/ parliament.  

ferret . It has got to the point where only 7% of Aussies think we shouldn't have signed Kyoto.  So arguably what you think is not all that relevant I guess.  Even this poll has about 83% in favour of action (by the worst reading of thoses stats). - and this poll goes back way before Bali. 

Who knows, maybe even USA will sign Kyoto one day. 
As they say, the are going metric as well ....  "inch by inch" 

PS I'd prefer to be shot as the messenger than like this bloke.

Seems to me you blokes want to argue whether or not the gun is loaded. 
 I argue that the wise thing to do is "extract one's head from the barrel"

(PS I also believe , along with IPCC, that the gun is loaded btw - but sometimes you have to resort to EVEN IF.... THEN... argument)


----------



## wayneL (18 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> The only hurdle I see is the apathy in some cases, the totally empty rhetoric that the non-green lobby come up with, and the stubborn refusal of many to act.



So you're talking about Al bore and his cronies here, yes? Lots of rhetoric and SFA on the action.

Only one way to get the respect of the plebeians and henceforth, action... lead by example. a woeful failure there. 



2020hindsight said:


> Are these insurmountable?  Fortunately, mankind is slowly pulling his head out of the sand and becoming a bit more aware on green issues.   (IMO)



Awareness does not equate to action. For instance, you yourself are vociferously aware, yet do very little, by your own admission. 



2020hindsight said:


> Who knows, maybe even USA will sign Kyoto one day.
> As they say, the are going metric as well ....  "inch by inch"



Kyoto? IF AGW is real.... pffft.... Too little, too late.

Give me some real action on pollution and environmental degradation, not this politically expedient, possibly fictional scare mongering.


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 March 2008)

wayneL said:


> Awareness does not equate to action. For instance, you yourself are vociferously aware, yet do very little, by your own admission.



evidence?
whence this admission?
other than I wish I could do more.

At least I support the cause on chatrooms.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Fortunately, mankind is slowly pulling his head out of the sand and becoming a bit more aware on green issues.   (IMO). Fortunately in Aus at least, the people (and hence the politicians)  are becoming greener with every election/ parliament.



I'd personally prefer sustainability over "green" any day. The latter is simply a brand of politics along with Liberal, Labor, Democrat etc. Green doesn't necessarily mean sustainable.


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 March 2008)

xyzedarteerf said:


> George Carlin on Global Warning



lol, man's a genius 

the first 3.5 mins he hams it up - but finally gets to the point ... 



> 3m45s
> the planet isn't going anywhere folk - we are...
> planet will still be here - we'll be long gone - just another failed mutation-
> just another closed end biological mistake...
> ...


----------



## explod (18 March 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> I'd personally prefer sustainability over "green" any day. The latter is simply a brand of politics along with Liberal, Labor, Democrat etc. Green doesn't necessarily mean sustainable.




I think that is a good observation and has me thinking about identifying what is not sustainable:

Current population growth, 

Use of the current type of transport,

Current energy generation, coal,

They all have to be curbed and in some cases stopped.

The next question is HOW?


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 March 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> I'd personally prefer sustainability over "green" any day. The latter is simply a brand of politics along with Liberal, Labor, Democrat etc. Green doesn't necessarily mean sustainable.




ok smurf - I hear you - and knowing where you come from on this.

gotta feelin I used the same term about 10 posts back ... 
describing Bali as "a worldwide movement to recognise that man is exploiting this planet in an unsustainable manner ..?" 

you agree with that description?


----------



## wayneL (18 March 2008)

explod said:


> I think that is a good observation and has me thinking about identifying what is not sustainable:
> 
> Current population growth,
> 
> ...



The first step is to convince people to change their lifestyle.

Unfortunately, that's the last thing gu'mint and the bankers want. Our whole monetary system relies on perpetual growth to survive... That means encouraging people to spend in ever increasing multiples; on anything, cars, plasma TVs, cheap plastic crap toys, disposable nappies, preposterously packages trivialities... anything.

While that prevails there is Buckley's chance, unless by some miracle another power source other than fossil fuels becomes viable... in time.


----------



## treefrog (18 March 2008)

wayneL said:


> The first step is to convince people to change their lifestyle.
> 
> Unfortunately, that's the last thing gu'mint and the bankers want. Our whole monetary system relies on perpetual growth to survive... That means encouraging people to spend in ever increasing multiples; on anything, cars, plasma TVs, cheap plastic crap toys, disposable nappies, preposterously packages trivialities... anything.
> 
> While that prevails there is Buckley's chance, unless by some miracle another power source other than fossil fuels becomes viable... in time.




used to work in gu'mint - get paid more the more inefficient u are at your job:
start with self + 4 subs and do a,b,and c.
"Boss how about a pay rise, we are doing all this abc quite well and have let one fellow go so now self +3?"
"sorry mate pay depends on how many you have working for you"
so we spend 50% of our time writing subs why we need more staff and in 3 years have self +7 and a pay rise
and the rules of gu'mint never alter - don't change the system or we get less

like someone posted on another thread today - ignore the elephant in the room - for GW the elephant is population growth - the other issues energy, environment, cars etc very difficult issues but can be addressed, but please tell me how we sort the overpopulation thing


----------



## explod (18 March 2008)

Population is big on all fronts.

First one is religion,  Catholic Church mantra from above apparently, "suffer the litle children and bring them unto me"

Instinctive right/urge, men and women to procreate.

Gummints need cannon fodder for war and drones to carry out the work for the rich.


Being gay is neaurological so perhaps ways to increase this gene may help.

The real change of attitude required will be enormous.   Education (complete) is the only solution and that is why I admire people Like Gates/Buffet and many other very wealthy for puting most of thier fortunes into education.

The numbers of people on the web now, (China has just surpassed the US) could hold a key.

I admit that my own learning has gone through the roof since I got connected.  (Not that I know much) but you know.


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 March 2008)

If you want to cut world population, you need to do what the Chinese have done I guess - with the "one child policy" ...

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=74443&highlight=chinese#post74443


> ... the Chinese have "opted" not to have the odd 300million people - "about the size of the U.S. population" - since introducing this policy.




Then again - anything we achieve here is trivial compared to what China has achieved (and more yet to be achieved?) 
India too. 
Africa likewise has crazy population growth.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=74755&highlight=chinese#post74755



> "1.48 billion people in the year 2038. "
> When you write this you are tempted to round it off to 1.5 billion.
> Then you realise that that is 20 million more than 1.48bill.
> i.e. Australia's entire population is just an inconsequential rounding error to the Chinese. Still let's see how many gold medals we get in Beijing.


----------



## Julia (18 March 2008)

explod;272600

Being gay is neaurological so perhaps ways to increase this gene may help.

[/QUOTE said:
			
		

> Can you give the evidence  for saying "being gay is neurological " (presumably that's what you meant?)  and explain in more detail what such a neurological diagnosis actually means?


----------



## explod (18 March 2008)

Julia said:


> Can you give the evidence  for saying "being gay is neurological " (presumably that's what you meant?)  and explain in more detail what such a neurological diagnosis actually means?




It is called gender inversion where it turns out for example that gay men have female brain structures.  A long time ago now, but did a unit at Uni called "Sex, gender and society" where we went into the various facits of it.  I am no expert in biology but feel sure if you Google the subject you could get more depth.

Of course there is a lot of opposition to the findings and a very controversial subject at that.

Probably a poor choice of option in my post, a bit like Hitler working towards a Master Race.  But always good to throw in all shaped pebbles to bring things out. 

we desperately need to strip the bones bare to indentify some/any worthwhile direction on what we are to do about climate change IMHO 

Cheers explod


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 March 2008)

The other way to help reduce the population - particularly in Africa, - would be (dah) to educate the womem (and the Pope?) about contraception (amongst other things).  I believe they run at 3% increase per annum. - interspersed with horrific "corrections"    It's just not the way a sensible God would carry on.  (imo)


----------



## The Ferret (19 March 2008)

Population growth is critical. All this talk about over population and that we can't sustain higher populations is rubbish.

Here in AU especially, it's critical we lift the rate of population growth (via reproduction).


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 March 2008)

The Ferret said:


> Population growth is critical. All this talk about over population and that we can't sustain higher populations is rubbish.
> 
> Here in AU especially, it's critical we lift the rate of population growth (via reproduction).






wayneL said:


> Kyoto? IF AGW is real.... pffft.... Too little, too late.




ferret
So to summarise whether we should have signed Kyoto

Wayne says too little too late (with qualifications) 
I say better than nothing 
you say ( I presume) too much too early?

And now you think that the world is not becoming overpopulated?
your opinion of course


----------



## The Ferret (19 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> ...And now you think that the world is not becoming overpopulated?
> ....




The world is far from overpopulated..... quite the opposite in fact.


----------



## explod (19 March 2008)

The Ferret said:


> The world is far from overpopulated..... quite the opposite in fact.





Thats true but we are a very messy crowd and do not like eating our vegetables.   So unless we start to show some restrain and disipline then we have a problem with the population.


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 March 2008)

The Ferret said:


> The world is far from overpopulated..... quite the opposite in fact.



ferret 
forget the 7% of Aussies who agree with you on global warming ..
I'm guessing you're one of about 2% of the world's population who believe that .


----------



## The Ferret (19 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> ferret
> forget the 7% of Aussies who agree with you on global warming ..
> I'm guessing you're one of about 2% of the world's population who believe that .




I form my opinions on the basis of what I have read, researched and after considering the merits of all arguements.... not on whether other people agree with me or what the majority may or may not believe.

The "7% of aussies who agree with me on GW".... can you provide me with the details of where this "7%" figure comes from? Or did you just pull that number out of the air?


----------



## wayneL (19 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> ferret
> forget the 7% of Aussies who agree with you on global warming ..
> I'm guessing you're one of about 2% of the world's population who believe that .




Whenever I see that a small minority believe something in contrary to the masses, I want to know what they know that the masses don't.

Don't fall for the "Appeal to Widespread Belief" fallacy. Science only please.


----------



## The Ferret (19 March 2008)

I'm having visions of 2020 furiously scouring the internet searching for any meaningful report, study or poll that mentions "7%".... lol


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 March 2008)

The Ferret said:


> I form my opinions on the basis of what I have read, researched and after considering the merits of all arguements.... not on whether other people agree with me or what the majority may or may not believe.
> 
> The "7% of aussies who agree with me on GW".... can you provide me with the details of where this "7%" figure comes from? Or did you just pull that number out of the air?







The Ferret said:


> I'm having visions of 2020 furiously scouring the internet searching for any meaningful report, study or poll that mentions "7%".... lol




http://au.news.yahoo.com/080310/21/163ss.html
Most Australians support Kyoto: poll



> A new poll has found that 7 per cent of Australians still oppose Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's act to ratify the Kyoto protocol to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
> 
> 
> The survey of 1,200 people found 64 per cent supported the move, but 29 per cent were still undecided.
> ...




gee whiz  ferret, for such an enlightened person, ...  you must have missed this one.

PS I've been watching Newstopia btw.

PS apology accepted


----------



## The Ferret (19 March 2008)

Ha!! lol. Ripper...

1) A poll of 1200 people out of 20+ million?? This is your standard of proof? No wonder you fall for the myth. Also, was this poll commissioned by "The Climate Institute"?
2) You, like many, many others have been hoodwinked by a flash, impressive name... "The Climate Institute". It's always interesting to see spokesfolk from "The Climate Institute" appearing in the mass media, spreading the good word. Sounds very scientific and official does it not??

Let me enlighten you about "The Climate Institute".. as I, as part of my research, thought I would find out more about who and what exactly is "The Climate Institute".

The Climate Institute is funded by The Poola Fund (Tom Kantor Fund) and was started by lefty Mark Wootton and his wife Eve Kantor, who was left a fortune by her late brother (Tom). They started this "institute" with money left to them. This "Climate Institute" is heavily stacked and associated with left-wing figures pushing a purely political agenda.. Bob Carr and Clive Hamilton to name just two.

The Poola Fund also supports a whole range of other green/left political groups such as;

Australia Institute (left wing think tank, also Clive Hamiltons plaything)
Australian Conservation Foundation
Friends of the Earth (what can I say??)
Beyond Nuclear Initiative (Partnership ACF, FOE & Poola Fund)
Queensland Conservation
Medical Association for the Prevention of War (WTF??)
The list of good left social causes goes on.... 

"The Climate Institute" is a very official, scientific sounding title given to a group of people who are quite openly pro-left and pro-green (politically) who have a political agenda to push. And it sucks in people who don't do their homework. "Oh, The Climate Institute says it's so, with a name like that they can't be wrong".

It takes a fool to accept as gospel anything that comes from groups with a known bias. It's akin to believing studies commissioned by tobacco companies that say smoking isn't all that bad for your health. It's called vested interests....

You've been sucked in by a flash name...


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 March 2008)

ferret said:
			
		

> 1. It takes a fool to accept as gospel anything that comes from groups with a known bias.
> 
> 2. It's akin to believing studies commissioned by tobacco companies that say smoking isn't all that bad for your health. It's called vested interests....



ferret
I see you've been doing your own ferreting around on the internet. 
I'll resort to the same EVEN IF ... THEN argument ok?  ( I can see you are gonna treat any polling as suspicious that doesn't give you your preferred answer)... 

1. first question then is , would you accept 17% - sheesh.  and that was before Bali. 

You accuse people of a bias when they have nothing personal to gain.
Compare that to Singer and Ball (who I have now had to expose twice on this thread as complete scientific who-res  -  I trust you are not gonna ask me to do it again ...) .  Ask them to give back the money they received from the oil companies for their opinions.   

2. And whilst you're at it , ask them to give back what they got from the tobacco industry. - insisting that there was no evidence that smoking and cancer were related.  

- in VERY similar language to current "lock-down-denial-against-all-the-evidence"

And you have the mmm incredible logic (almost said duplicity) to pretend that it's the scientists like the IPCC etc who are at fault here. To compare then to the tobacco industry deniers. 

You have no further to look than your team. - these "scientists" (Singer and Ball) were then and still are arguably "criminals"  - well they would be criminals if David Suzuki had his way you'd reckon - not only them but the politicians who follow their advice. 

Moving on..
3. Are you in the group that say the world is not getting hotter? - that the ice is not melting etc ?  Here is what the Nobel Peace Prize winning IPCC think about the facts... 

4. I assume you know what 1.65 sigma means?

5. Back to Singer and Ball - If you had a relative who died from smoking-related cancer AFTER Singer and Ball went in to bat so strongly (including financial gain) FOR the cigarette companies, would you say it's fair to call them scientific who-res?  Or would you use a term like murderers?

THis is from the IPCC website ( talk by manning if you're interested).  Trust you've been there in the couse of your research.


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 March 2008)

wayneL said:


> Whenever I see that a small minority believe something in contrary to the masses, I want to know what they know that the masses don't.
> 
> Don't fall for the "Appeal to Widespread Belief" fallacy. Science only please.



Wayne, You say “science only” I disagree (that we should limit ourselves to chemistry etc)  .
or possibly, it depends how you define "science".

We should be discussing not only the stats and the scientific explanations, but the public opinion, the politics, the need for action (individually, locally, nationally and internationally), the chance of said action, the chance of a effective result, etc. 
- even the economic effects of action - or (Sterns etc) the greater economic effect of inaction.  

Then of course there are the big questions like the cheap clean energies like nuclear – which we will no question one day be forced to use.  But that’s tomorrows discussion – or rather one for our kids or grandkids.  

Surely we need action. - ok ok - you would say against SOME forms of pollution, I say ALL forms of pollution (which would become a accepted public mindset for the future. - just as there has been an incredible acceptance with time for recycling bins). 

And surely we need to get public recognition of this fact, because as you mentioned many times, we should each be driving smaller cars, and driving less etc. 

And Govts have to take action, introducing and encouraging sustainable energy, PLANNING (wow there’s a new word) however belatedly for the future , even if we are in serious damage control mode.

There is a very important power source required to get this movement going – you infer so yourself when you criticise inaction and/or say “too little too late” – and that is PEOPLE POWER. 

Events like Clean UP Australia Day might be a great effort, and no question have turned people’s opinion around to littering and plastic over the years, but you need more aware ness of the heat we are generating.  all those Laws of Thermodynamics that are going on in the background – and using the resources in a TOTALLY unsustainable manner – there is no such thing as sustainable use of oil – unless I guess you use it at the same rate as it’s being formed ).

This is a trading chatroom right?  heck we even discuss the economic opportunities:- 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/20/2194865.htm?section=justin



> *Emissions trading 'could produce $20b windfall*
> By environment reporter Sarah Clarke
> Posted 14 minutes ago
> A new report says the Federal Government could reap up to $20 billion in new revenue under the national emissions trading scheme. – Monash University  etc


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 March 2008)

Now getting back to talking more about chemistry and physics, I’m all for discussing E=mc^2 for starters 

Heck, here's a bloke who (allegedly) has argued against man's contribution to global warming , and he STILL concudes we should be going nuclear ... 

Incidentally, he also says "a few more hot summers and a few more years of drought and eventually people will face the inevitable" - implying he agrees that it's getting hotter. 

I'm guessing he'd agree that going nuclear would cause a reduction in this last-mentioned effect. (why else would he say it ) 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/17/2191969.htm


> *Energy 'collapse' will force nuclear use, says expert*
> Posted Mon Mar 17, 2008 6:20pm AEDT
> Updated Mon Mar 17, 2008 6:55pm AEDT
> A professor of geology has warned there will be no option other than embracing nuclear power in Australia when other energy sources collapse.
> ...


----------



## explod (20 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Now getting back to talking more about chemistry and physics, I’m all for discussing E=mc^2 for starters
> 
> Heck, here's a bloke who (allegedly) has argued against man's contribution to global warming , and he STILL concudes we should be going nuclear ...
> 
> ...




Used to be a member of the Greens some years ago and they lost me by their arguments on this issue.

Yes saw an article on the a day or so ago and agree fully.   Compared to other power sources the waste and pollution from nuclear is nearly zilch.  There are modern nuclear power plants in operation that are very safe and secure.

We must get our heads out of the sand and explore this option seriously.  If China do not go this way, the sheer numbers of cars and coal fired generators will burn up the air supply while we blink.

There a few things not included in this article, one being the pollution content of nuclear, (near zilch)


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 March 2008)

explod .. yep -  I was pro nuclear in the 60's, (obviuosly as a plough share rather than a sword) 
then got a bit nervous after Cherobyl, then back again ever since I heard a prof say "compared to Global Warming, Chernobyl will look like a walk in the park


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 March 2008)

ferret, lemme guess, you think this is just a fluke ? - that just as we are discussing Global Warming, Adelaide gets a one in 3000 year event? 

What sort of science have you studied btw?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/18/2192987.htm?section=justin


> Adelaide heatwave 'one in 3,000 yrs'
> Posted Tue Mar 18, 2008 3:03pm AEDT
> Updated Tue Mar 18, 2008 4:40pm AEDT
> A climate model indicates that a 15-day heatwave in Adelaide, like one that has just ended, is only likely to happen once in 3,000 years.
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 March 2008)

ferret , 
why do I think it's not particularly relevant what a sub-15% minority say on this ?
Well unless you are personally gonna sabotage energy usage, 
we have three parties at least who are pro-action on global warming. 

1. Labor
2. Greens
3. Coaltion.

Why not start a 
4. "Ferret's Party" ?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/18/2192326.htm?section=justin



> *Nelson to focus on climate change*
> Posted Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:41am AEDT
> 
> Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson will outline the Opposition's climate change policy today. (AFP: Greg Wood)
> ...


----------



## chops_a_must (20 March 2008)

explod said:


> Used to be a member of the Greens some years ago and they lost me by their arguments on this issue.
> 
> Yes saw an article on the a day or so ago and agree fully.   Compared to other power sources the waste and pollution from nuclear is nearly zilch.  There are modern nuclear power plants in operation that are very safe and secure.
> 
> ...




It is inevitable that most of the world will go nuclear.

I do not think it is right for Australia however.

You need a lot of water, dense population (I'd argue Australians are pretty dense... but... you know what I mean), and a cool climate helps...

The only place for mine that it would be suitable would be in Tassie, and I don't think that will ever happen.


----------



## The Ferret (20 March 2008)

A few hot days in S.A is "evidence" of global warming? lol. Of course, the fact that Sydney has just had it's coolest January in 50 years means nothing... By your reasoning I could equally claim that this means the earth is cooling. Both would be a silly conclusion to draw from such limited observation.


----------



## wayneL (20 March 2008)

The Ferret said:


> A few hot days in S.A is "evidence" of global warming? lol. Of course, the fact that Sydney has just had it's coolest January in 50 years means nothing... By your reasoning I could equally claim that this means the earth is cooling. Both would be a silly conclusion to draw from such limited observation.



Another logical fallacy - Argument by selective observation.


----------



## chops_a_must (20 March 2008)

Just out of curiosity...

Put your guns down for a moment...

Ferret, Wayne and 20/20 especially... do you guys think that "Global Warming", or even specifically excess carbon emissions, is just a symptom of more substantial environmental problems?

And IFF so, (from your point of view) do you think that the GW debate will run its course and ultimately be replaced by matters that are arguably more central to the crux (don't know the plural for crux lol) of the matters. i.e. massive energy resource depletion.

Because as a "hard core" environmentalist (at least in these parts I am lol!), the debate to me is completely arbitrary. For instance, most people would agree that we are at or near peak oil production. Therefore the moves to combat this, in turn target carbon emissions. Without oil, we don't drive, don't have an economy etc. etc. So you look at mass transit ideas, which both help the economy, are an efficient energy use, and you reduce emissions that way.

And you can go on and on in this manner. Destroying farm land to extend cities etc. etc.

The follow up questions are then: do policies and initiatives towards reducing CO2 specifically, although desirable (maybe? maybe not?), go only part of the way in doing their job, because of this? And if so, what do you propose we target, or not target?

Of course, you could just ignore my effort and say "nah, they're aren't any environmental problems either!" Lol! :

p.s. If I get some good answers, you'll get to hear what I think about all this. Wont that be grand boys and girls?


----------



## Aussiejeff (20 March 2008)

explod said:


> Thats true but we are a very messy crowd and do not like eating our vegetables.   So unless we start to show some restrain and disipline then we have a problem with the population.




Agreed. Add to that the fact that as populations around the planet become more "civilised" those populaces all eventually desire to live in the best house on the best land in the middle of the biggest city!

Hands up everyone who wants to abandon RIGHT NOW where they live, work and play to go and help populate the Simpson Desert? Hmmm. I don't see too many takers. Not even with massive subsidies. IT JUST WON't WORK. 

If the philosophy of greatly increasing our population to build cities and towns in the outback actually worked in todays world, WHY ARE HUNDREDS OF OUR COUNTRY TOWNS going backwards or down the tube population and economic-wise???

AJ


----------



## The Ferret (20 March 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> Just out of curiosity...
> 
> Put your guns down for a moment...
> 
> ...





Some good questions there chops.... here are my answers. It may not look like it, but I have been brief. 

1) I am not necessarily saying that GW is not happening at all. I am saying that there are enough questions remaining about its intensity and cause to warrant further observation prior to winding back the gains of the past 200 years. What I am saying, is that the “debate”, as it now stands, has been rushed, one sided and has become political in the extreme. There surrounds the issue of GW a religious fervour, a hysteria, and this is dangerous as it stifles honest open debate. Anyone, regardless of qualification, who questions aspects of GW, its causes and intensity, is ostracised and almost publicly shamed as a “non-believer”, a fool and a naysayer. History has shown us that this sort of mass-hysteria can have devastating consequences.


2) It is possible that the debate will run its course. However, because the issue has been embraced by so many, so publicly, that should it become apparent in the years to come that GW was indeed false or much less impacting than previously believed, what will happen is that the “movement” will claim victory and say they saved the day. They will claim that the (minor and futile) changes that were imposed on society averted disaster. I believe that too many people would be humiliated by a public declaration of “we were wrong” for the movement to ever declare that the entire basis for the GW debate was based on fallacy.

3) Peak Oil and resource depletion. Chops… I agree that right now, today, there are certainly supply constraints on oil and this will remain for some time into the future. It is obvious that OPEC elect not to increase output because they presently cannot. However, this will not always be the case..IMO. As exploration continues new, large reserves will be discovered, developed over time and exploited. Of course, I agree that eventually, one day we would have depleted the worlds oil reserves. IMO, however, this is some way off.

What is important to remember is this….. Even when (before) we deplete oil (or any other resource) the desire for profit will have lead to newer technologies. The market, seeing not a crisis, but an opportunity for profit, will react. This has been the case for 1000’s of years and will continue to remain so. No one develops new drugs for the good of mankind, it’s done for profit. The same can be said of any industry, any sector, any part of modern life. Advancement is driven by competition and profit.

Look at what we have achieved in such a short period of time and how society, just a short 200 years ago, would have never ever ever been able to comprehend (yet achieve through planning) what we can do now. Global travel was limited to a select few in tall ships. It was only 105 years ago that the Wright brothers had the first powered flight. 100 years! In that time we have gone from a single short flight to having developed something as impressive and astoundingly difficult as the A380. Every day millions of people travel on thousands of flights from thousands of airports the world over, in thousands of different aircraft. Do you think they would have even been able to imagine such a feat? This is but one example, but there are hundreds, thousands of examples. A short 230 years ago the globe was not even charted, it took years and years to chart a single continent with any degree of rough accuracy. Now we have satellites that look down upon us… imagine trying to explain to Captain Cook the concept of Google Earth…. he would not have been able to comprehend the entirety of it.

Everything we have become is because of the desire to be king, to be number 1 and the desire for profit. Just as those such as Cook and the Wright bros would not have been able to comprehend such advancements, we are not able to fully imagine (yet alone plan for) what will be discovered over the next 30/50/70 100 years plus. We cannot “plan” or centralise these things. The market itself will follow the most efficient path based firstly on what we need, and secondly on what we want. It’s erroneous to imagine running out of oil, using the image of what we know of society today. It’s erroneous because we cannot possible take into consideration developments and advancements that will occur. 

All we have achieved as a society, as a species, has been done with no central planning, no “control” from a central agency or master-plan. It has been achieved by what F.A Hayek describes as the “spontaneous order”, essentially driven by free market economics and the desire for profit. As we speak thousand of companies world wide are researching energy alternatives. Why? Because there is money to be made. Not because of some Govt decision or order or because we signed a piece of paper.

It is easy to believe that we have reached the end-point of knowledge, that we know all there is to be known in regards to development. However, the same can be said for previous generations and times. All they knew was what they had then, and couldn’t possible fathom (or plan for) future development. Just as we now, cannot fathom and centrally plan for what happens next. 

Trust the market, trust the spontaneous order….. it has worked for centuries and will continue to do so. As soon as we believe that individuals, Govt’s or committees can be more efficient in finding solutions to problems… we are doomed.


----------



## Julia (20 March 2008)

Ferret, that is just a great post.  Thank you.


----------



## Aussiejeff (20 March 2008)

The Ferret said:


> .... All we have achieved as a society, as a species, has been done with no central planning, no “control” from a central agency or master-plan. It has been achieved by what F.A Hayek describes as the “spontaneous order”, essentially driven by free market economics and the desire for profit .... we now, cannot fathom and centrally plan for what happens next.
> 
> Trust the market, trust the spontaneous order….. it has worked for centuries and will continue to do so. As soon as we believe that individuals, Govt’s or committees can be more efficient in finding solutions to problems… we are doomed.




Hi Ferret. It seems the *philosophy* you are espousing is one based ultimately on TOTAL CHAOS, where the "top dog" always wins out by destroying his competition. Indeed, that is a philosophy that has been often favoured by many despots and Kings over the centuries before now... 

Of course, we mere humans have acheived much that is good, born out of such chaos - unfortunately, usually at the expense of millions of lesser lives (I shouldn't really have to point out such human "achievements" as the Holocaust, Crusades, WW1, WW2 etc - all brought about by a base human desire to "be the winner" at all cost. Great leaps forward in "technology" were the outcome of some of these events too).

That is the nub of it really. At what COST do we achieve an outcome, or invent a "useful" object or machine? Without a PLAN that takes into account the COST of our actions, it would seem we are also doomed.....


AJ


----------



## The Ferret (20 March 2008)

Aussiejeff said:


> Hi Ferret. It seems the *philosophy* you are espousing is one based ultimately on TOTAL CHAOS, where the "top dog" always wins out by destroying his competition. Indeed, that is a philosophy that has been often favoured by many despots and Kings over the centuries before now...
> 
> Of course, we mere humans have acheived much that is good, born out of such chaos - unfortunately, usually at the expense of millions of lesser lives (I shouldn't really have to point out such human "achievements" as the Holocaust, Crusades, WW1, WW2 etc - all brought about by a base human desire to "be the winner" at all cost. Great leaps forward in "technology" were the outcome of some of these events too).
> 
> ...




You are wrong in stating that this is based on total chaos. Quite the opposite. I am talking about well know political and economic theory surrounding spontaneous order. I am talking about the power of free market economics and how the advancement of mankind, as a species, has been driven by this.

Look at where we are and what we have achieved. Who planned this? No one... it formed purely for the desire to achieve profit ie- survive! It's how we moved from hunter gatherers to small groups to structured societies. Agriculture, manufacturing.. all made possible by profit.

I note you talk of dictatorships and despots. Interesting to note that the vast majority (but not all) of history's failures and failed states had assumed a communist structure. The idea that man, govt and parties can somehow control the division of labour and production or any part of how mankind develops has been proven over and over again to be a fallacy with terrible results. Poverty, starvation and a total lack of freedom. China is a wonderful example. 

The change in direction from a closed system, to moving towards a free market economy has brought riches to China already, despite the fact they still have a long way to go. this move by China is both another admisssion of failure that communist structures fail and a glowing example of how free markets can bring wealth to the poorest. Man cannot centrally control or plan for things on large scales. If we cannot bring man made "order" and structure to our markets (in a single country), what chance is there that we can plan and order all that would need to be done, in sync, with total co-operation from everyone, all the things that we allegedly need to do to save the entire planet???

This is a very, very complex issue, and one that has been debated by left and right for many moons. It is way beyond what can be effectively discussed on posts. Anyone who has studied economics, philosophy, politics, even anthropology will know the ideas that I have discussed and where they have come from. There are countless books on economics and political theory... go and read some if you REALLY want to learn more about yourself and how we got here.... and how we cannot centralise control for anything... let alone saving the planet. The free market will do it IF it needs doing.

The Ferret
ps- Thanks Julia


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 March 2008)

The Ferret said:


> Anyone who has studied economics, philosophy, politics, even anthropology will know the ideas that I have discussed and where they have come from. There are countless books on economics and political theory... go and read some if you REALLY want to learn more about yourself and how we got here



 ferret 
since you 've avoided answering the question, can I assume that you don't know what 1.65 sigma is. ?


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 March 2008)

ferret 
here's a clue... 1.65 standard deviations = 95% confidence limit ( for double sided distributions etc) 

after all, we can talk about philosophy on philosophical threads, and we can talk about the advantages (and disadvantages) of blind adherance to last year's capitalism models on economic threads, (economists keeping up with the times are suggesting the correct decision is try to counter Global Warming incidentally - )  

But let's get back to the topic shall we.   IPCC base their science on 95% confidence intervals.  i.e. they are 95% sure that what they say is happening is in fact happening, etc. 

Back to the economic models, (where I know little, but you paint yourself as an expert) -  I have the choice of listening to you on the one hand, or the likes of Nicholas Stern or Ross Garnaut.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/20/2196002.htm?section=justin



> Garnaut outlines emissions trading proposal
> Posted 2 hours 40 minutes ago
> Updated 1 hour 32 minutes ago
> ...
> ...




Furthermore ...
Those graphs were done BEFORE this report ..
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/16/2190744.htm


> Thaw of world's glaciers reaches record high: UN
> Posted Sun Mar 16, 2008 12:14pm AEDT
> 
> A thaw of the world's glaciers has accelerated to a new record, with some of the biggest losses within Europe in a worrying sign of climate change, the UN Environment Program (UNEP) said.
> ...




but hey - there's no money in glaciers - why would you be interested. ?


----------



## The Ferret (20 March 2008)

lol... my posts were in direct reply to chops who asked some questions of us.

He took the time to ask us some valid questions, so I took the time to answer him... It's generally respectful to do so.

I note that he actually said "...... and 20/20 especially..." when asking the questions. Perhaps you too may like to answer the same questions he asked of us?

Anyone can copy and paste graphs and quotes from other people. How about a bit of free thinking? A bit of actually providing structure and depth to your arguement instead of copy and pasting? How about engaging with people by answering questions that have been put to you (by chops etc) and presenting your own reasoning?

No offence, but your posts to date have been largely devoid of structure and reason. They are more incoherent jumbled sentences interspersed with quotes from others and graphs that have been Googled. You seem to be confused, as you assume my reply to chops was somehow in reply to you. I wonder if you read some the posts at all before replying. It's like you just have this list of pre-planned posts with some other graph or quote from some other source all lined up and ready to go, regardless of what is being said by others. There is more to engaging people than that. You can do better, surely....


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 March 2008)

The Ferret said:


> Anyone, regardless of qualification, who questions aspects of GW, its causes and intensity, is ostracised and almost publicly shamed as a “non-believer”, a fool and a naysayer. History has shown us that this sort of mass-hysteria can have devastating consequences.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



1. Agreed about the global warming "debate". It's not really a debate at all in practice.

2. Oil. You might be correct but I must point out that thus far the market has failed absolutely despite a nearly 10 fold increase in prices over the past decade. It has failed despite rapidly increasing effort, which is itself now using an awful lot of oil, to find new large reserves. You might be right in the long term but it is already too late to find new reserves and develop them in time to avoid at least a period (years) where production declines. The oil debate is thus not about whether we will have a problem, to an extent we already do, but whether it is temporary or permanent.

Worth noting that the No.2 oil province is the USA, the most economically powerful and technologically advanced nation the world has ever seen. Nearly 4 decades later, no amount of technology and capital investment has been able to even halt their decline let alone reverse it.

So we might well have plenty of oil at some point. But if the market needs to go to $1000 to discover and develop it then for practical purposes it may as well not be there. Energy at that price is useless to man for all but a few applications.

Fossil fuels are only useful in the first place due to high productivity. Put a little in and get a lot out. If we end up putting half our collective efforts into fuel supply then that's going to make having that fuel rather pointless. If it takes 10 hours labour to produce enouogh fuel to drive 20km then it's pointless - for most trips walking would be the rational choice in terms of productivity unless you had to carry something heavy. You wouldn't gain anything by spending all your personal labour producing fuel if the amount produced only did the work of one man. 

It only works when one person can extract enough fuel to do the work of many - that's the real issue and why oil has been so useful thus far. Same with any energy source. All commercial energy sources are essentially a means of leveraging labour. They aren't useful bar a few niche applications if they cease to achieve that end result - and oil is rapidly heading towards just that, it's leverage ratio having been in steep decline for years.


----------



## wayneL (20 March 2008)

*2020*

Talk of sigma with climate observations and you (and the IPCC) are entering the realms of the Twilight Zone. What utter tosh. A case of selective observation fallacy once again. (Yep, even smart guys are prone to that... perhaps more so)

Firstly, the distribution is not populated with enough numbers to make it statistically significant enough. If they have plugged in any number outside of what is definitively known, it is the result of bias prone guesswork

Secondly, the assumption of normal distribution is probably fallacious. There could be a substantial degree of kurtosis that is, at present, impossible to know, but my guess would be substantial leptokurtic. This will serious #### with IPCC assumptions. Try using 95% confidences with stock market distributions and you get seriously hurt; that is, unless betting against it. fat tails abound. 

Sigma is BS for this discussion.

*Ferret,*

Good posts and agree with your Hayek hypothesis. 5 stars.

*Chops,*



> do you guys think that "Global Warming", or even specifically excess carbon emissions, is just a symptom of more substantial environmental problems?



Oh abso-bloody-lutely. Though I question (but not deny altogether... open mind) the validity of AGW, my contention has always been that it's the wrong target. Target other environmental concerns and you would get a better CO2 result anyway IMO.



> And IFF so, (from your point of view) do you think that the GW debate will run its course and ultimately be replaced by matters that are arguably more central to the crux (don't know the plural for crux lol) of the matters. i.e. massive energy resource depletion.



Dunno about that one. There is to much pro AGW money sloshing around for many to let it go... and to much (con rest of the environment) money sloshing around for the real crux to be addressed. I'm not hopeful there unless environmental degradation turns really nasty. (could be sooner than I think though)



> Because as a "hard core" environmentalist (at least in these parts I am lol!), the debate to me is completely arbitrary. For instance, most people would agree that we are at or near peak oil production. Therefore the moves to combat this, in turn target carbon emissions. Without oil, we don't drive, don't have an economy etc. etc. So you look at mass transit ideas, which both help the economy, are an efficient energy use, and you reduce emissions that way.



Yes arbitrary, as stated above, address other, largely ignored) concerns and CO2 is dealt with (if indeed it has any role in GW).



> And you can go on and on in this manner. Destroying farm land to extend cities etc. etc.



Also as a card carrying greenie, this drives me ####ing nuts. In view of the AGW, peak oil, and shortage of food hypothesis, this is absolutely insane. We humans are seriously cognitively dissonant in this regard. 



> The follow up questions are then: do policies and initiatives towards reducing CO2 specifically, although desirable (maybe? maybe not?), go only part of the way in doing their job, because of this? And if so, what do you propose we target, or not target?



Absolutely. My view has always been that an inordinate focus on CO2 emissions removes focus from the REAL problems on this planet. I could go on _ad infinitum_ and these problems are too many to focus on here. But suffice to say, without the distraction of the CO2 debate, they are freakin' obvious to anyone with an un-atrophied frontal lobe.


----------



## The Ferret (20 March 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> 1. Agreed about the global warming "debate". It's not really a debate at all in practice.
> 
> 2. Oil. You might be correct but I must point out that thus far the market has failed absolutely despite a nearly 10 fold increase in prices over the past decade. It has failed despite rapidly increasing effort, which is itself now using an awful lot of oil, to find new large reserves. You might be right in the long term but it is already too late to find new reserves and develop them in time to avoid at least a period (years) where production declines. The oil debate is thus not about whether we will have a problem, to an extent we already do, but whether it is temporary or permanent.
> 
> ...




I generally agree with you on most points. Although it's important to also remember that many oil fields once deemed unviable have since become viable and exploited. Plus, oil is now being extracted from fields at depths (sub ocean) that were unimaginable 10 or 15 years ago, so, there have been both advances made in technology and also some market response by bringing previously unviable fields online. It's certainly not the end game though as you say.

I do disagree however with suggesting that the reserves "may as well not be there" if the price needs to hit 1000pb. This price would serve the function of greater exploration, but the discoveries made would, in turn, reduce the price.

In the long run it is only logical that we shall exhaust all oil reserves. It's not a finite resource. But I am more than entirely confident that we will adapt and find new sources of energy to replace oil.

Look at it this way.... The only reason we are so dependant on oil is because it was essentially the first and easiest energy source we found all those decades ago. It doesn't mean it's the only source. It's the only source we have so far discovered, embraced and developed.


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 March 2008)

The Ferret said:


> 1.  lol... my posts were in direct reply to chops who asked some questions of us.
> 
> 2. He took the time to ask us some valid questions, so I took the time to answer him... It's generally respectful to do so.
> 
> ...



ferret

1. My recent posts were nothing to do with your recent posts – they were about your apparent lack of courtesy to reply to my post.  i.e. I simply reintroduced the question which you had avoided answering. 

2. Since you are such a respectful person to answer questions
how about answering questions 3, 4, and 5  that I posted for you back there.

After all I had the courtesy to answer your claim that I couldn't find any evidence that you were in the 7% who think we shouldn't have signed Kyoto.  

You laughed and said who believes polls. - biased etc. 

I pointed out that EVEN IF it was a biased poll,  *this entire thread *is a poll (PRIOR to Bali) - 
and worst case scenario was that you were in the 17% who think we shouldn't have signed Kyoto (PS if you look at the start of the thread, you 'll see that is a pretty accurate statement) 

3. In due course. 

4. “Anyone can copy and paste graphs and quotes from other people. How about a bit of free thinking?”   ohh sorry – lol – my turn to laugh .   I am posting from the IPCC website ( I gave you the links before, but I'm guessing you didn't bother to read any of them). - They happen to be top scientists.  The best.  You saying you can "freethink" better than they can.  Are we talking something you learnt in old fashioned capitalist cutthroat philosophy again?  

4a. They happen to be Nobel Peace Prize winners ! - ring a bell? - Nobel Peace Prize? - excellence and all that? 

5. “You seem to be confused, as you assume my reply to chops was somehow in reply to you....  What the !!! lol -  what you smoking dude?  sheesh, and you reckon I’m confused.
Here’s the post I was referring to:-  (next post)


----------



## The Ferret (20 March 2008)

Yes 2020..ok, you win, I lose, you're right and I am wrong. lol. I apologise if I have not answered questions posed to me by you. As I have stated, your posts are somewhat incoherent at times.... not sure if they are statements, questions or ??

Welcome back Wayne! Thought you must have been sucked up in a killer tornado or washed out to sea by a freak wave or something. Glad you like the Hayek post.

To quote Margaret Thatcher as she held up a copy of The Constitution of Liberty... " This..! Is what we believe.."


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 March 2008)

ferret , 
ok - thanks for the concession , but I'll still post the rest of what I was going to say ..

Here's what I wanted you to answer :-


			
				2020 said:
			
		

> 1. first question then is , would you accept 17% - sheesh. and that was before Bali.
> 
> You accuse people of a bias when they have nothing personal to gain.
> Compare that to Singer and Ball (who I have now had to expose twice on this thread as complete scientific who-res - I trust you are not gonna ask me to do it again ...) . Ask them to give back the money they received from the oil companies for their opinions.
> ...




You infer a link between scientists who proclaim GW to thse who backed the tobacco industry - now there I have to admit I took serious offence.  Since it is easily proven that that is in fact what some of the scientist for your side are doing (Singer and Ball for starters). 



			
				ferret said:
			
		

> "The Climate Institute" is a very official, scientific sounding title given to a group of people who are quite openly pro-left and pro-green (politically) who have a political agenda to push. And it sucks in people who don't do their homework. "Oh, The Climate Institute says it's so, with a name like that they can't be wrong".
> 
> It takes a fool to accept as gospel anything that comes from groups with a known bias. It's akin to believing studies commissioned by tobacco companies that say smoking isn't all that bad for your health. It's called vested interests....
> 
> You've been sucked in by a flash name...




Now remember that YOU introduced the tobacco industry ok?

Now, to preach that tobacco was not related to cancer (and be paid to say so) (question 5 ) – would it be 
a)	murder?
b)	manslaughter?
c)	or misdemeanour?
d)	or a bit of larrikin mischief?

These same “scientists” are now proclaiming that AGW is a myth.  – “all due to sunspot activity”  etc (and this happens to be at a relative low at the moment btw – compared to predictions for 2012) 

Now final comment . 
 I’ll put $5 on two bets 
a) that the Globe will be hotter in 2012 than it is now , and
b) that you work for the oil industry  or someone similar.

Heck I reckon the worst I can do is come out square


----------



## chops_a_must (20 March 2008)

This is exactly the sort of stuff I wanted to get out... Even the person from "the opposite side" has touched on some really important points and principles. Anyone been to Istanbul? A really good example of what Ferret is on about, and why on a certain level, some of the things he is saying, does work.

Does anyone else have any thoughts on the questions I posed?

Julia? AJ?

I wont bite, I promise...

Want it to go a bit further before I have a spiel... 

P.S. - Ferret... we have a chocolate and a polecat/ silvermit, yourself? I think they would make great traders. Fearless and cheeky pricks.


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 March 2008)

I mean you can believe the oil industry if you are absolutely stupid ok?

THey are not saints ok - 
 in fact I'd go so far as to say they are the opposite - 
SANTA worshippers !!  - (damn that dyslexia - DNA = National Dyslexic Association as they say) 

worse still - greedy dollar worshippers !! - at the expense of the planet!.


PS ferret 
you mentioned philosophy 
Try this for a bit of prose 
think about it ! ok - 
it'll cost you nothing to think about it !

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2007/s1895823.htm


> JENNIFER MACEY: His final book was also a best seller. But it's probably the earlier novels that will continue to give Vonnegut his place in the American literary pantheon.
> 
> His last book ended on a poem.
> 
> POEM EXCERPT (read by actor) *When the last living thing has died on account of us, how poetical it would be if earth could say in a voice floating up, perhaps from the floor of the Grand Canyon, it is done, people did not like it here*.


----------



## The Ferret (20 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> ferret ,
> ok - thanks for the concession , but I'll still post the rest of what I was going to say ..
> 
> Here's what I wanted you to answer :-
> ...




1) Did not infer any link between GW scientists and tobacco backers. I stated that reports commissioned by lobby/interest/political groups, such as "The Climate Institute" ( a left wing political org), should be taken with a huge shovel of salt and used tobacco industry reports as an example.

2) E) Misguided.

3) The globe will be exactly the same temp as today and the sea will lap the shores at exactly the same height in 2012.
Hell, you can even lock me in for 2021.

And finally...lol, no, I do not work for the oil industry, although I do have money invested in oil stocks as part of my balanced portfolio.

Why is it that anyone who does not follow the GW bible is accused/suspected of being in the oil industry?? Talk about paranoia.


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 March 2008)

The Ferret said:


> 1) Did not infer any link between GW scientists and tobacco backers. I stated that reports commissioned by lobby/interest/political groups, such as "The Climate Institute" ( a left wing political org), should be taken with a huge shovel of salt and used tobacco industry reports as an example.
> 
> 2) E) Misguided.
> 
> ...




2. see we disagree.  I'd call it murder.
Just as I'd call it murder that Bernie Banton died of asbestos related diseases! - THOSE BASTARDS KNEW ABOUT THAT IN THE LATE 20's sheesh.

3. try 2023 - it's an 11 year cycle .  Perhaps you didn't know that - 
 but Galileo did


----------



## The Ferret (20 March 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> This is exactly the sort of stuff I wanted to get out... Even the person from "the opposite side" has touched on some really important points and principles. Anyone been to Istanbul? A really good example of what Ferret is on about, and why on a certain level, some of the things he is saying, does work.
> 
> Does anyone else have any thoughts on the questions I posed?
> 
> ...




Have not been to Istanbul. we want to though. Also want to go to Iran as we have been to other places in middle east.

I'm the only ferret in our house. Although we have domesticated a few brushtail possums who come around everynight for a bit of a play. Had one get stuck in a drain pipe which is ferrety! Had to cut him out at 1am in morning....


----------



## explod (20 March 2008)

The Ferret said:


> 1) Did not infer any link between GW scientists and tobacco backers. I stated that reports commissioned by lobby/interest/political groups, such as "The Climate Institute" ( a left wing political org), should be taken with a huge shovel of salt and used tobacco industry reports as an example.
> 
> 2) E) Misguided.
> 
> ...




Not one fact in that reply.   And what gives you the great insight to 2012, let alone 2021.

If that is the best you can come up with then we should have two bob each way and support the global warming thingo, just in case.   Being cursed by the Grandchildren may well prove to be worse than being down below with old nick.


----------



## chops_a_must (20 March 2008)

explod said:


> Not one fact in that reply.   And what gives you the great insight to 2012, let alone 2021.
> 
> If that is the best you can come up with then we should have two bob each way and support the global warming thingo, just in case.   Being cursed by the Grandchildren may well prove to be worse than being down below with old nick.




In his defence, I don't think he is saying to hell with it.

Just that he thinks there are kinds of stabilisers out there, that will automatically keep things in check.

Not passing comment on that yet...


----------



## The Ferret (20 March 2008)

explod said:


> Not one fact in that reply.   And what gives you the great insight to 2012, let alone 2021.
> 
> If that is the best you can come up with then we should have two bob each way and support the global warming thingo, just in case.   Being cursed by the Grandchildren may well prove to be worse than being down below with old nick.




One thing I have learnt over the years is that "fact" is subjective. It's different things for different people.

Take a car accident for example. 5 people see it but each statement is slightly different.

Whats fact for one person is not always fact for others. Whats important is that people recognise that and accept thats how humans are. Its both a weakness and strength, all in one. A riddle, wrapped in an enigma, you may say.... The Pope for example... for him, JC is a fact... to others? no...


----------



## explod (20 March 2008)

The Ferret said:


> One thing I have learned over the years is that "fact" is subjective. It's different things for different people.
> 
> Take a car accident for example. 5 people see it but each statement is slightly different.
> 
> Whats fact for one person is not always fact for others. Whats important is that people recognise that and accept thats how humans are. Its both a weakness and strength, all in one. A riddle, wrapped in an enigma, you may say.... The Pope for example... for him, JC is a fact... to others? no...




Yep, a lot of shades of grey,  however the subjective can create wonderful covers for truth.   In the old metphysics we could be convinced that the potential of a rock was limitless in theory.    However when I burnt my hand as a child, I knew it and every other child of enquiry came to the same conclusion.   Not an absolute granted, as this existence (all) may be a figment of my mind exclusively.

Since the cold wet winters, plentiful tadpoles and lush pasters on my Dad's farm 50 years ago we have come a long way and I feel the diffence.   

Perhaps the conundrum of ones philosophical discourse is that at the end of infinity ones loses feeling.


----------



## wayneL (20 March 2008)

The Ferret said:


> One thing I have learnt over the years is that "fact" is subjective. It's different things for different people.
> 
> Take a car accident for example. 5 people see it but each statement is slightly different.
> 
> Whats fact for one person is not always fact for others. Whats important is that people recognise that and accept thats how humans are. Its both a weakness and strength, all in one. A riddle, wrapped in an enigma, you may say.... The Pope for example... for him, JC is a fact... to others? no...



'zactly

I have read enough scientific extracts to conclude that:

1/ Most science is biased. It starts with a hypothesis and corrupts the the process to support the hypothesis. Anyone who reads exercise physiology science will reach this decision almost immediately.

Very few projects acid test themselves.

2/ Scientists are human and often have agendas (whether psychological or financial in basis) other than the "absolute" truth; social proof  is just as prevalent in the scientific community as anywhere else.

Cutting through all that crap is jolly difficult, especially when the pro-AGW is using an "Argument From Adverse Consequences"

As you observe, original thought is not common.


----------



## Wysiwyg (20 March 2008)

The Ferret said:


> One thing I have learnt over the years is that "fact" is subjective. It's different things for different people.




I know what you mean, kinda like the sky is blue only via agreement.


----------



## The Ferret (20 March 2008)

wayneL said:


> 'zactly
> 
> I have read enough scientific extracts to conclude that:
> 
> ...




Very true Wayne. Also science, true science, is about theory and then PROVING the theory based on replication and observation. Anything that is theory only is not science. We can only prove what we can replicate over and over in controlled conditions. Until we have managed to build another earth, replicate the "damage" we have done, and then compare it with a control earth for comparison I'll keep driving my car and flushing the toilet. Of course, we cant do these things because we are so powerless.. which simply reinforces the arrogance of "modern" man who believes we can


----------



## The Ferret (20 March 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> I know what you mean, kinda like the sky is blue only via agreement.




It's only blue because we have been taught it is blue. If you isolated and raised child telling them that blue was green and vice versa, they would swear it was green and never accept otherwise.


----------



## chops_a_must (20 March 2008)

The inverted [colour] spectrum is a dilly of a pickle.


----------



## explod (20 March 2008)

wayneL said:


> 'zactly
> 
> I have read enough scientific extracts to conclude that:
> 
> ...




Playing on crap.  Research papers are required in the preamble to encapsulate a brief outline of the body.   This is often misunderstood and of course an outline cannot possibly connect all of the knots.    The proper reading and uderstanding of a comprehensive piece of research, most often years in the making is usually outside the patience and scope of those, who for example, want to say that the fire is not hot.

Untill one has run the full gaunlet and is clearly not acting on hearsay then we may have something.   

To be convinced.


----------



## explod (20 March 2008)

The Ferret said:


> It's only blue because we have been taught it is blue. If you isolated and raised child telling them that blue was green and vice versa, they would swear it was green and never accept otherwise.





Description, i.e. language and feeling/touch are very different matters.

Being taught green over blue is the start of conditioning, to conform, to be indoctrinated.     Feeling the hot fire is the beginning of experience.

Global warming more and more is being experienced, it is louder than words.


----------



## Wysiwyg (20 March 2008)

wayneL said:


> 'zactly
> 
> I have read enough scientific extracts to conclude that:
> 
> 1/ Most science is biased. It starts with a hypothesis and corrupts the the process to support the hypothesis.





Waynel, why don`t you check out the Large Hadron Collider open day next month.(you can drive on the right hand side of the road can`t you.)

Just a thought as it is certainly a mammoth project financially with the best scientific human knowledge applied.


----------



## Wysiwyg (20 March 2008)

explod said:


> Description, i.e. language and feeling/touch are very different matters.
> 
> *Being taught green over blue is the start of conditioning*, to conform, to be indoctrinated.     Feeling the hot fire is the beginning of experience.
> 
> Global warming more and more is being experienced, it is louder than words.





We are conditioned from birth and later in the piece start to question what we are being told.


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 March 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> Just out of curiosity...
> 
> 1. ... do you guys think that "Global Warming", or even specifically excess carbon emissions, is just a symptom of more substantial environmental problems?
> 
> ...




1. ... No , to me it is a simple extension of the pollution problem. But GW is a major problem in its own right.   Millions of implications too numerous to mention.  Anything from locust plagues due to the warm winters .. to polar bears eating human children (on news the other night).  

2. ... No because the world is getting hotter.  With current trends, GW will only "run its course" after man intervenes - because he is causing the difference between the green line and the red line. 

3. resource depletion ? - totally different matter - fortunately it will force us to abandon fossil fuels eventually.

4.  True, as above. 

5. yes,  

6. we target what can be achieved by maximum human involvement - given the politics of the times - within the constraints of the inertia and the stupidity of an unscientific community intent on chasing dollars.

 Attenborough


----------



## explod (20 March 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> We are conditioned from birth and later in the piece start to question what we are being told.




Absolutely, as we are doing.

I feel the environment, from my own experience has led me to the view, that it is changing for the worse.

However what we a conditioned to and what we question is still different from the sense of touch.    Touch, sight, smell/taste, cognition are different and seperate parts of our experience.

To some degree the direct experience is reality and language is the abstract.  From experience to expression if you like.  Speak, write, sketch and gestulate back to express.

Strewth, its getting too late for this stuff.


----------



## spooly74 (20 March 2008)

The Ferret said:


> Also science, true science, is about theory and then PROVING the theory based on replication and observation. Anything that is theory only is not science. We can only prove what we can replicate over and over in controlled conditions. Until we have managed to build another earth, replicate the "damage" we have done, and then compare it with a control earth for comparison I'll keep driving my car and flushing the toilet. Of course, we cant do these things because we are so powerless.. which simply reinforces the arrogance of "modern" man who believes we can




True science! So scientific theory is false science 

The most active knowledge gathering is, and has been for the last 4 centuries, science. Nothing else comes close in human history. While there are other forms of knowledge gathering, such as economics and literature, none of them can tag genes or make polymers that never existed before.

It`s common the hear those who oppose this or that with - "but it`s only a theory" - like global warming or evolution (which btw is an observable fact). No higher accolade can be given to a scientific claim than that it is a theory, unless to say it is a confirmed theory, and theories, when they are abandoned in the light of new evidence, are often as not replaced by some theory that at least looks very much like the original.

"Nobody goes into a gravel pit and counts stones to do geology" - Darwin.
You know from past experience/experiments what sort of protocols will deliver good results, and you apply them.


----------



## wayneL (20 March 2008)

explod said:


> Playing on crap.  Research papers are required in the preamble to encapsulate a brief outline of the body.   This is often misunderstood and of course an outline cannot possibly connect all of the knots.    The proper reading and uderstanding of a comprehensive piece of research, most often years in the making is usually outside the patience and scope of those, who for example, want to say that the fire is not hot.
> 
> Untill one has run the full gaunlet and is clearly not acting on hearsay then we may have something.
> 
> To be convinced.



You are making some unverifiable insinuations there explod.

Here is an example of what I mean. I read a paper which was the basis for which a large part of the horse racing fraternity started feeding corn oil and other fats.

The experiments were conducted on high speed treadmills at sub maximal speeds and found that corn oils reduced lactate production and increased anaerobic stamina.

The elephant in the room is that most horse races are run at 95% to 100% maximum speed on terrain vastly different to a treadmill, with ~ 55kg on their back.

It reduced lactate production alright, but somehow was responsible for the locking up of cellular glycogen. The implication of ketone bodies in this was unmistakable via the smell of acetone post race.

This was never picked up in the study because the parameters were not relevant to the end result... one can only gues as to the motivation for using sub maximal tests, but it was just plain wrong.

I dissed it straight off the bat, because I actually read the extract, but it took those who believed in "science" unquestioningly, bitter experience to find out it was rubbish.

Now... lets not leap to conclusions eh?


----------



## wayneL (22 March 2008)

FYI

video


----------



## The Ferret (22 March 2008)

wayneL said:


> FYI
> 
> video




There's money in them thar cars.....

The desire for profit drive technology and advancement yet again....... (regardless of 10m dollar prize).


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 March 2008)

Wayne
this is an excerpt from that video..



> This is big issue…
> Regulators in Washington
> *and environmentalists*
> are clamping down on the industry.
> ...




Note the phrase "Regulators and environmentalists"  (the latter influence the former right?) 

I would argue that 
a) Regulators go where the public leads them to some extent at least , and hence
b) both directly and indirectly, environmentalists should take a lot of the credit for this change of direction of vehicles. 

ferret
Of course there is economic advantage in being the first with new power methods.!
What do you think Nicholas Stern or Ross Garnaut have been hinting at ? - as loudly as they can. ?
sheesh

I used to import photovoltaic cells in the early 80's - albeit novelties only - little windmills etc - unfortunately ahead of their time.   But Australia should be world flaming leaders in solar power by now. ... 

except for the stupidity of Johnny Howard in winding back on the csiro and the OPPORTUNITIES (now almost missed) of global warming - 
 or Johnny Rotten as wayne likes to call him


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 March 2008)

Agreed that Australia should be more of a leader with alternative energy technologies.

We were leaders in hydro for years (still are via consulting).

We were leaders in brown coal until the 1980's.

Geothermal is where the new potential for technical leadership exists IMO. Solar too though geothermal has the greatest potential in my view.

Trouble is we're absolutely lacking the vision that made the hydro and brown coal industries happen. Both were done not as simply a means of keeping the lights on but as the basis of a much larger economic strategy. Indeed hydro was Tasmania's _only_ real economic strategy for half a century, a situation that differed in Victoria only due to Melbourne's role as a service centre and the Bass Strait oil fields. 

What's stopping us now is the focus on competition and short term costs. Nobody's going to invest in some uncertain capital-intensive project in that environment. Indeed most won't even invest in capital-intensive _proven_ technology that is economically competitive. Everything comes down to capital and especially risk minimisation - they want plants that can literally be packed up and sold, not R&D or something that is fixed in place. Hence all those gas turbines that are cheap to build, expensive to run but able to be relocated without too much fuss.


----------



## wayneL (22 March 2008)

It's snowing in Cheltenham, right now... late March.


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 March 2008)

In addition to IPCC of course, there is Hadley Centre (= UK Met Office) . They employ 1500 people including 200 scientists working on global research.  
Heaps of information. - there's a reference there to the gulf stream ( mustve mentioned this one a few times) - that UK temp increase could well be moderated by a partial slow down of the Gulf Stream . 

Hence UK is a bit unique. (though that doesn't mean it isn't experiencing increasing temps. 

Also they put out that graph I posted back there - with the red and the green graphs - and man responsible for the difference. . 

........................

ferret 
I challenge you to find some bias, or reason for bias in the UK Met Office. 



> The Met Office Hadley Centre for Climate Change — named in honour of George Hadley — is part of, and based at the headquarters of the Met Office in Exeter. The Hadley Centre provides a focus in the United Kingdom for the scientific issues associated with climate change.
> 
> The Centre’s has several major aims:
> 
> ...





http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/
thence to faq's :-
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/faqs/#faq



> Questions about climate change
> 3.1  How do we know that the climate is changing?  Although several aspects of climate are changing, temperatures provide the clearest evidence. For many decades, temperature near the surface has been carefully measured at thousands of locations on land and at sea. There are a large number of measurements of temperature close to the Earth's surface which are global in extent, from which we can form a global average, going back to 1860. These all show temperatures higher in the past few years than at any time during the instrumental period, even allowing for measurement uncertainties and gaps in the data.
> 
> *Global average land and sea temperatures (see chart above) show considerable variability from year to year, but a clear underlying trend which shows rising temperatures until about 1940, a slight downward trend from about 1940-1975, and a rise of about 0.5 °C between 1975 and the present day.*
> ...




THIS IS A "WHAT IF" regarding the Gulf Stream  / North Atlantic Drfft  - driven by THC = thermohaline circulation  (salt concentrations etc ) :-


> The Hadley Centre model has also been used to investigate the impact on climate of a *hypothetical shut-down of the THC*. *It predicts that the whole of the northern hemisphere would be cooled, especially the north Atlantic; the UK might see a cooling of 3–5 °C.* Daily minimum temperatures in central England in winter could plunge by 10 or 20 °C, and this would likely have a bigger effect on UK society than global warming. However, as was pointed out above, this is a 'what-if' scenario and not a prediction.






> The model predictions of only partial shut-down of the THC seem reassuring, but we do not fully understand the reasons for the stability of the ocean circulation, and there have been recent measurements in the N Atlantic which seem to be at variance with model simulations. Hence, research continues to quantify the risk of this potentially high-impact outcome of climate change.
> .....
> 
> 3.22How will climate change impact on our lives in the UK?  Climate change will have impacts not only on the environment, but also on society and the economy. To find out more about these, please contact the UK Climate Impacts Programme, which is based at the University of Oxford.


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 March 2008)

Furthermore they put out these two graphs :-
One if we start now -  where we can limit the increase in global temp to 2 deg C  by reducing CO2 output by 1.9% per annum....

and one if we wait for 10 years (start around 2017) - and then we have to reduce by 2.5% per annum .

PS Obviously there are various scenarios. 
There is an entire thread around here somewhere that discusses the various options in that regard.

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/U/ukweather2080/9_winter_t.html

*Predicted Weather Report for 2080 = 72 years hence* :-


> UK Weather 2008 - Global warming predictions
> 
> Winter 2080
> Based on the outcome of the high emissions scenario from the Hadley climate models, here is a sample of the weather that we might experience in winter 2080. The modelers call the high emissions scenario *the 'business as normal' scenario. In other words, this is what the weather will be like if we make no effort to curb our effect on global warming.*
> ...



  Repeat - this is a theoretical prediction for 2080 = 72 years hence.

PS THis last stuff is allegedly from the Hadley Centre , but relayed through Channel 4 - who did that scurrelous report (by Durkins) on the Great Global Warming Swindle.  - so much for that little exercise in deception 

PS The final graph ( as I mentioned in last post) is from the Hadley Centre website - in fact it's what you get if you click on FAQ #3.2 - and it is exactly what  David Attenborough ( or Sir David to his mates) - says in that youtube.
Remember now, 1500 employees, including 200 on global climate change.  - and they conclude that man is causing the difference between the green and the red graphs.


----------



## spooly74 (23 March 2008)

wayneL said:


> It's snowing in Cheltenham, right now... late March.




Very unusual ... more evidence of climate change perhaps


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 March 2008)

I mean whilst Johnny Howard has been stuffing around on this , UK has had an office like this (Hadley Centre), helping businesses (and governments, and the public) understand, mitigate effects, etc .  

Obviously with knowledge comes opportunity.  Rule of business is " FIND A NEED AND FILL IT " isn't it?

Obviously also, with knowledge,  comes the ability to mitigate effects on the environment and on the critters under our charge.  !

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/ar4/interpret.html



> *The planet is already committed to a certain level of climate change over the next 50 years*. As well as giving help in understanding the core aspects of the science, the Met Office provides advice on adaptation and mitigation for planning purposes. Is your organisation ready to face the challenges that a changing climate will bring?
> 
> The information the Met Office can provide helps organisations make the right decisions now in planning for the future.
> 
> ...


----------



## metric (23 March 2008)

what happened to the hole in the ozone layer? how do you put a hole in gas?

sunspots have more influence over the earths temp than GG.


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 March 2008)

metric said:


> what happened to the hole in the ozone layer? how do you put a hole in gas?
> 
> sunspots have more influence over the earths temp than GG.




imagine it's the air inside a car tube 

metric - that leads on to a good parallel question though..  Did Regulation work on that occasion? - Was it brought in in a timely manner?  i.e. before or after it was "too late"?

ok - 
We find ozone being depleted 
There was a good chance (NOT CERTAIN note) that CFC's were responsible 
1978 - Sweden decides to act - human intervention - to protect the planet from deadly UV radiation
followed by USA, Canada, Norway  
BUT the rest of Europe refused to act.
"until after the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole in 1985"
CFC's production phased out completely in 1996. 
(? - used under licence in critical applcations) 

So give it a few lifetimes, it'll all be pristine again 
Moral of the story - It's come to the point where man and his dabbling in unusual concentrations of strange chemicals and gases - must be equally proactive in monitoring and combatting their effect on climate !   
Either that or learn how to lather up a shave instead of using a pressure pack can etc. 

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


> *Ozone depletion*
> The ozone layer can be depleted by free radical catalysts, including nitric oxide (NO), hydroxyl (OH), atomic chlorine (Cl), and atomic bromine (Br). While there are natural sources for all of these species, the concentrations of chlorine and bromine have increased markedly in recent years due to the release of large quantities of manmade organohalogen compounds, especially chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and bromofluorocarbons.   -  Cl and Br radicals are liberated by the action of ultraviolet light. Each radical is then free to initiate and catalyze a chain reaction capable of breaking down over 100,000 ozone molecules.
> 
> Ozone levels, over the northern hemisphere, have been dropping by 4% per decade. Over approximately 5% of the Earth's surface, around the north and south poles, much larger (but seasonal) declines have been seen; these are the ozone holes.
> ...




http://www.ec.gc.ca/ozone/docs/archives/en/phaseout/surplus3.cfm


> Australia has phased-out the import, export and manufacturing of Halons since 1992 and CFCs since 1995. Some state governments in Australia also ban the possession of Halons without a license. Australia has also decommissioned all of its non-critical Halon fire extinguishing systems.
> 
> In Australia, all the states have passed regulations prohibiting the use of Halons in non-critical applications... etc .





As for your second statement -  I think that has been addressed in previous posts. - certainly both sunspot activity and greenhouse gases affect temp. - but there's only one of those we can affect right?


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 March 2008)

I'll drag this post here from another thread for a quick comment...



2020hindsight said:


> PS - it's apparenly the rule of oops 69.3 (100 log(2))
> but 72 is a neat one having so many factors.
> just like a bank account -
> 6% per annum will double your money in 12 years (6x12=72)
> ...




Here's another way to look at the origin of that "rule of 69.3" - ALLEGEDLY this just happens to be the US life expectancy  - down sharply from 77 etc 
(sorry Kim , i know you didn't claim that , but I'm gonna take some of the claims on that website with a pinch of iodide - or chemtrail or whatever.)  - hey I agree with you that that spraying doesn't look real healthy though! no question. 

This is from Kimosabi's post on whatever that is they are spraying into the atmosphere ( weird? - cloud seeding of some sort maybe? - just like they are gonna do in Beijing later this year to guarantee good weather ? )

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=269652&highlight=sunspot#post269652

PS Why don't they call it the rule of 69? - I'm guessing their website would be flooded by inquisitive teenagers 
"whaat, yu wan gar-rik  prawns and corrifrower?" - lol - one of the best on the joke thread that one.  ) 

PS At birth I notice we have life expectancy of 78 for men and 83 for women) http://www.aihw.gov.au/mortality/data/life_expectancy.cfm

Current world average is 67 yrs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy


----------



## metric (23 March 2008)

call me cynical if you like, but something just doesnt sit right with me about this sudden GW fanaticism. just for an entertaining exercise let us ask;

IF, GW is a scam;

*who stands to profit from it?
*who is pushing the agenda? (to profit from it)
*are there scientists whom disagree? ( how are they treated by mainstream media)
*what is the single biggest contributor to GW?
*whom is the religion designed to disadvantage? (why)


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 March 2008)

lol - 
 make it a quick post 
I'll call you a cynic 

Not sure who is gonna profit by it - probably anyone with the sense to get in on the ground floor with innovative methods to tackle it - like wayne's cars etc.

But we are all gonna suffer if we don't act - 
and that goes double for the GBR (great barrier reef) 
but Maybe you don't like coral ?
or fish?
or .......


----------



## metric (23 March 2008)

which one of us is thinking like a trader..?


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 March 2008)

you mean like Nick Stern?  I'd say I am. 

you mean super short term or medium term?

by the way ..
which one of us is making sense?
which is falling for the likes of Durkins with his Great Global Warming Swindle"? 
Try watching the youtube attached to this post back there :- 

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=231965&highlight=swindle#post231965


----------



## noirua (23 March 2008)

Australia provides more money towards the development of UCC coal than any other. Mining companies pay a 20 cent tariff per tonne on all coal produced.
A Link from the "Australian Coal Association" :  http://www.australiancoal.com.au/cleantechAus.htm


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 March 2008)

noirua said:


> Australia provides more money towards the development of UCC coal than any other. Mining companies pay a 20 cent tariff per tonne on all coal produced.
> A Link from the "Australian Coal Association" :  http://www.australiancoal.com.au/cleantechAus.htm



which simply means we are being hypocritical when we deny that it's a problem yes?

It's like Johnny Howard: " NO WAY will we sign up to Kyoto and it's goals! - but in any case, just for fun, we've given it a go, and we are doing better"


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 March 2008)

Kimosabi said:


> Yep, Global Warming is just an excuse to create a tax for an essential gas for life on the planet.
> 
> What they should be doing is taxing pollution, but the priority seems to be destroying the planet as quickly as possible.
> 
> ...




wow - 
 whilst i disagree with most of your post Kim, I sure as hell find that chemtrail website the weirdest damned thing I've ever seen .
http://imageevent.com/firesat/strangedaysstrangeskies?z=3&c=4&n=1&m=-1&w=4&x=0&p=14

Only thing that comes close maybe is the Tasmanian aerial spraying of the forestry (and the Tassie Devils) - (and the people living or bushwalking at the margins etc thereof) 

Anyone know what it's all about - this Chemtrail stuff?


----------



## noirua (23 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> which simply means we are being hypocritical when we deny that it's a problem yes?
> 
> It's like Johnny Howard: " NO WAY will we sign up to Kyoto and it's goals! - but in any case, just for fun, we've given it a go, and we are doing better"



Problem with UCC development is that it's about 4 to 5 years away from development in Australia. This, I feel, is not Australia's fault and as the Great John Howard said, if we don't supply the coal then they will buy inferior coal from the likes of Indonesia.
Australian coal is amongst the very best in the World, don't knock it, fly the :aus:


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 March 2008)

..........
truly dedicated to the cause m8


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 March 2008)

metric said:


> call me cynical if you like, but something just doesnt sit right with me about this sudden GW fanaticism. just for an entertaining exercise let us ask;
> 
> IF, GW is a scam;
> 
> ...



1. Nuclear power, non-hydro renewables, natural gas, manufacturers of energy saving technologies (especially solar hot water and low energy lighting), hydro.

2. Internationally: Nuclear industry, Green politics, non-hydro renewables, manufacturers of energy saving technologies, natural gas, hydro.

Within Australia: Green politics, nuclear, hydro, non-hydro renewables, natural gas, manufacturers and importers of low energy water heaters and to a lesser extent lighting.

3. Yes (largely ignored by mainstream media).

4. Electricity generation from fossil fuels (globally about 60% of total generation, in Australia about 90%).

5. Industries and countries more reliant on coal (especially coal-fired electricity) than their competitors.

At the country level: Australia, US and any other country first world country with large coal resources. (Transfers manufacturing and economic wealth to other countries, particularly those with large coal resources not bound by Kyoto).

Within Australia: Victoria is the largest loser with NSW and Qld also facing significant losses. SA, Tas and NT are the most likely to benefit (though that depends on what policy actions and developments are taken in the years ahead). WA may gain in the short term but is likely a long term loser under the present approach.


----------



## Wysiwyg (23 March 2008)

Speaking for myself ... it is hard to look beyond my lifetime, my own self importance, my own existence.To take responsability for the planet beyond my lifetime doesn`t come naturally and i need to be educated.To understand.

I look at the empty packaging of some food just consumed and visualise the rubbish dump ground that it goes to.At the dumping ground i see televisions, furniture, computers, plastic ... lots of plastic, rotting food .... the stench nauseating, toys ... no love anymore.Cover it over and make another rubbish collection place.

My presence as a human contributes to the rubbish in the world.I am only one!



> Currently, about 40% of urban solid waste is not treated at all, but is instead
> landfilled at sub-standard facilities on the outskirts of cities. In Beijing alone,
> *10,000 tons of urban solid waste is generated every day*, and about 700 solid
> waste dumps surround the city. This condition is not unique, as two-thirds
> ...


----------



## metric (23 March 2008)

> So we have over-reproduced and are now engaged in a frantic and, according to Lovelock, futile exercise in damage limitation. All our low-watt light bulbs and electric cars are doing no good, and may aggravate the situation further.
> 
> 
> "Bali (the latest international climate change agreement) may make things worse. One peculiarity is that when you burn coal and fuel you not only put CO2 into the atmosphere, which makes the Earth warmer, but you also put out a lot of dust and haze, which acts as a screen and cools the Earth."
> ...




its a pretty good article actually. even if one is a sceptic.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=541748&in_page_id=1770


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 March 2008)

metric said:
			
		

> "Bali (the latest international climate change agreement) may make things worse. One peculiarity is that when you burn coal and fuel you not only put CO2 into the atmosphere, which makes the Earth warmer, but you also put out a lot of dust and haze, which acts as a screen and cools the Earth."




This is saying that you should make a lot of atmospheric pollution to keep us cool and/or counter the effects of the concurrent warming going on AND ACCUMULATING in the background.  Such a genius proposal!

It's like arguing it's ok to keep drinking progressively stronger whisky to stay ahead of a hangover - trouble is one day you have to wake up with an empty wallet - and face the exacerbated consequences. 

or burning the timber in the house to keep warm - ok till you run out of house.


----------



## metric (23 March 2008)

so called global warming is such a mish mash of conflicting science, i refuse to defend any of it.

russian scientists have stated that up untill the last 2 years, 50,000 sunspots per day flared on the sun. the last 2 years no more than 5 (?) per day have flared. they claim that this has decreased the earths temp by the same degree that GG has increased it in the last 70 years or some such. (i could find a link)..

also, it is said that the ice caps melting will cool the oceans, creating a ice age.

then we have james lovelock saying we are doomed in 30 years from now...etc.

seas are supposed to rise by 10cm per century......i thought they had been for thousands of years..wasnt there a land bridge to tassie??

to paraphrase mossad. "by way of deception, thou shall do business". someone is making money...

just my


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 March 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> Speaking for myself ... it is hard to look beyond my lifetime, my own self importance, my own existence.To take responsability for the planet beyond my lifetime doesn`t come naturally and i need to be educated.To understand.
> 
> I look at the empty packaging of some food just consumed and visualise the rubbish dump ground that it goes to.At the dumping ground i see televisions, furniture, computers, plastic ... lots of plastic, rotting food .... the stench nauseating, toys ... no love anymore.Cover it over and make another rubbish collection place.
> 
> My presence as a human contributes to the rubbish in the world.I am only one!



All things considered, I would say that food is a bigger problem in landfill than plastic. Plastic is less polluting to produce, reasonably stable in landfill and doesn't create masses of methane. No excuse for anyone to be throwing out food IMO - why would you want to do that anyway?


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 March 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> No excuse for anyone to be throwing out food IMO



smurf
fair point 
why not recycle paper, glass, plastic, green waste etc in "the bin"
and bury the food scraps (and the prawnheads I guess?) in a compost heap out the back .
we do that at the moment, but not sufficiently "religiously" I suspect. 
difficult for people who live in a condom -
inium.


----------



## Wysiwyg (23 March 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> No excuse for anyone to be throwing out food IMO - why would you want to do that anyway?




I`m sure no one eats every skerrick of food.Food outlets, butcheries, shopping centers and fruit/vegetable stores dispose of decomposing organics daily.


----------



## metric (24 March 2008)

the australian has put a bomb under the global warming religion, as has nasa.

http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=233&Itemid=1



> A great many founts of authority, from the Royal Society to the UN, most heads of government along with countless captains of industry, learned professors, commentators and journalists will be profoundly embarrassed. Let us hope it is a prolonged and chastening experience.




victims of ramping? 



> Penny Wong's climate mega-portfolio will suddenly be as ephemeral as the ministries for the year 2000 that state governments used to entrust to junior ministers. Malcolm Turnbull will have to reinvent himself at vast speed as a climate change sceptic and the Prime Minister will have to kiss goodbye what he likes to call the great moral issue and policy challenge of our times.




um, i remember saying something like this...



> Duffy: "Is this a matter of any controversy?"
> 
> Marohasy: "Actually, no. The head of the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) has actually acknowledged it. He talks about the apparent plateau in temperatures so far this century. So he recognises that in this century, over the past eight years, temperatures have plateaued ... This is not what you'd expect, as I said, because if carbon dioxide is driving temperature then you'd expect that, given carbon dioxide levels have been continuing to increase, temperatures should be going up ... So (it's) very unexpected, not something that's being discussed. It should be being discussed, though, because it's very significant."
> 
> Duffy: "It's not only that it's not discussed. We never hear it, do we? Whenever there's any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it's put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary."




to read the whole article, go to link at top.


----------



## wayneL (24 March 2008)

Nice find metric.

Now we get to see cognitive bias in action. (Actually, we have all along, it just wasn't so blinkin' obvious)


----------



## 2020hindsight (24 March 2008)

Summary :-  First impression, I guess I should have allowed another option in the poll 
*“Global Catastrophe is gonna happen, and there’s no need to act because it’s too late anyway.” *– but (imo) just because we’ve been living in blissful ignorance for the last 20 years, doesn’t mean we can not use that excuse to say – ahh gee, we let the chance to act go by and now it’s too late” 

metric, this is from your post from "WWIII" thread
Trust I can reply to it here. 

and it’s a particularly great find! – if totally defeatist. (- because his warnings have been ignored too long - or perhaps he’s trying to jolt us into some action? maybe?).  I mean he points out that the last time we were this hot (55 million years ago), it took the effects of 2 million million tons of oil to cause the temperature rise -  and we’ll be equivalent to that in 20 years. !  (he arguably leaves the door slightly open). 


> We will have put that much into the atmosphere within the next 20 years or so. We know what happened last time, we know how long it lasted. It hung around for about 200,000 years."



You suggested that the next world war would be started by global warming (together with environmental refugees)   -  conceded, world wars are not out of the question, as the likes of China scrambles to find unpolluted territory to house it’s billions. 

(so much for ferret’s proposal to encourage population growth in the interests of short term profits according to some economics 101 lecture) 




metric said:


> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=541748&in_page_id=1770
> Global Warming will start next war ..
> .....He (Lovelock) passionately wants "the best of our species" to survive, and is philosophical about the majority who won't.
> 
> ...




He also says :-


> Crackpot or visionary, the fact is that more and more people are paying attention to Lovelock, and that he, himself, supports the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) - the influential group who shared the Nobel Peace Prize with former American vice president Al Gore for their campaigns on global warming.
> 
> He has been proclaiming his Gaia Theory for a generation. This states that the Earth is a living, self-regulating system and that by filling its atmosphere with CO2 (carbon dioxide emissions) we have destroyed the balance and overheated the planet. We are in the phase when the thermometer suddenly shoots up.
> 
> ...


----------



## metric (24 March 2008)

i posted all of that fools quotes as an example of the rabid fanaticism of the global warming religion. a point only you missed.

if you want to learn the truth about GW. i suggest you research my earlier post.

you are a FOLLOWER...



2020hindsight said:


> Summary :-  First impression, I guess I should have allowed another option in the poll
> *“Global Catastrophe is gonna happen, and there’s no need to act because it’s too late anyway.” *– but (imo) just because we’ve been living in blissful ignorance for the last 20 years, doesn’t mean we can not use that excuse to say – ahh gee, we let the chance to act go by and now it’s too late”
> 
> metric, this is from your post from "WWIII" thread
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (24 March 2008)

metric said:


> 1. i posted all of that fools quotes as an example of the rabid fanaticism of the global warming religion. a point only you missed.
> 
> 2. if you want to learn the truth about GW. i suggest you research my earlier post.
> 
> 3. you are a FOLLOWER...




1. well this fool happens to be the bloke who permitted the hole in the ozone layer to be detected and corrected.  - Do you give him any points for that ?
hang on - You don't believe in the ozone layer as I recall. (back a few posts now). 

2. mmm - brave statement in these uncertain times.  Even IPCC talks of 95% confidence ( and a number of scenarios)

3. Yep , I guess I follow the best opinions I can find out there.  I had the cheek to agree with the IPCC that we should try to reduce CO2 by 1.9% per annum starting now, and so hold temperature increase to 2 degrees. 

and EVEN IFF I'm wrong, a lot of good will be done for cleaning up pollution and developing new efficient technology. 

It's still a gr8 opportunity to invent some efficient energy systems, I think you'd agree.  Solar, wind etc.  (or would you prefer to stay with oil and coal?)  

And if these people are embarrassed, then I will happily join ranks with em again.  - and totally relieved because a right royal mess has been avoided. 


> If Marohasy is anywhere near right ..... A great many founts of authority, from the Royal Society to the UN, most heads of government along with countless captains of industry, learned professors, commentators and journalists will be profoundly embarrassed.




btw, you and the blokes at the local pub will be proven right. - right all along.  We never should even have analysed the situation.  

btw, that paragraph continues ...



> Let us hope it is a prolonged and chastening experience.



Now I found that a fraction mmm - let's say - revealing of a possible underlying bias.


----------



## metric (24 March 2008)

my biggest concern in the environment that affects me, is that my bush full of big green chillis in the garden would hurry up and turn red! 

my second environmental concern was the methane being created at the local pub.....thats how i discovered truely good beer at the 'spotted cow' bottle shop!!!



> "Whenever there's any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it's put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary." - Op-ed in The Australian




and thats my third concern, and why i think someones making money.....


----------



## 2020hindsight (24 March 2008)

metric - happy hour comment ok?
As for all those "countless captains of industry, scientists, learned professors" etc all being completely wrong - 
stranger things have happened ! 

PS everyone should watch this youtube once a week at least (imo). 

 Speed Skating 1,000 Meters - Steven Bradbury 2002 Olympics


----------



## metric (24 March 2008)

watch it whenever one feels down!!!! lol, i was cheering!!!


----------



## 2020hindsight (24 March 2008)

lol - the end justifies the routines?

"routine around" for 990 metres  lol
and the incredulous voice of the commentator "and stephen bradbury wins !!!"  - ava good one. 

PS just to stay on thread - no doubt we'll be able to monitor the earth's temperature next year - or in 2012 or whatever (tomorrow is a bit meaningless )  I've still got $5 on that 2012 will be hotter that 2008 ok?


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 March 2008)

> "Whenever there's any sort of weather event that can be linked into the global warming orthodoxy, it's put on the front page. But a fact like that, which is that global warming stopped a decade ago, is virtually never reported, which is extraordinary." - Op-ed in The Australian



Of course the facts aren't being reported. Are they in any major issue?

Climate change is, in practice, and emotional and economic debate rather than a scientific one. That's not to say it doesn't exist and isn't a threat, just that rational scientific discussion on the subject ended several years ago as far as the general public, industry, politicians and even many scientists are concerned.

Much like rational discussion on pulp mills, roads, dams, factories or anything else where there are environmental issues ends the day someone announces the proposal to build one. 

If you look at the history of environmental debates in Australia then winners use emotion and photos whilst losers use science and engineering. In this case however the coal industry etc is having real trouble finding a workable emotional argument against cutting CO2 emissions - hence reducing emissions will win the debate no matter what the science says from now on.


----------



## noirua (25 March 2008)

University of Adelaide, "Paydirt's 2008 Uranium Conference" - Global Warming and Uranium: A green dilemma.
Professor Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, University of Adelaide - Boardroom Radio:  http://www.brr.com.au/event/43876


----------



## metric (25 March 2008)

http://infowars.net/articles/march2008/240308Singer.htm

an interesting quote from the linked article....



> As we have consistently pointed out, energy companies stand to gain from inflated prices caused by the fear of global warming and their representatives have been actively pushing the man made global warming mantra.


----------



## spooly74 (25 March 2008)

noirua said:


> University of Adelaide, "Paydirt's 2008 Uranium Conference" - Global Warming and Uranium: A green dilemma.
> Professor Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, University of Adelaide - Boardroom Radio:  http://www.brr.com.au/event/43876




Cheers noirua, interesting talk and I`d agree somewhat on the Co2 emisions although there was no mention of other pollutants. Frozen methane stored in the ocean floor could have drastic effects on temp.

The wobbles that he mentioned have the virtue of making a definite prediction. Setting aside all effects of human activity on climate, Earth should be currently on a temperature downslope, growing ever cooler in the next 5,000 or 10,000 years.

They are called Milankovitch Cycles and relate to 3 factors as he mentioned.
1. Orbital Variace
2. Obliquity (change in axial tilt)
3. Precession

Technical advances made it possible for geologists to study deep-sea sediment cores that contain a climate record going back millions of years. This climate record shows remarkably regular variations, which correlate with Milankovitch`s figures.


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 March 2008)

spooly74 said:


> Frozen methane stored in the ocean floor could have drastic effects on temp.



Just wait until we use all the conventional natural gas trying to cut emissions from power stations then end up mining methane, losing most of it to the atmosphere in the process, to make motor fuel, plastics and fertilizer.


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> wow -
> whilst i disagree with most of your post Kim, I sure as hell find that chemtrail website the weirdest damned thing I've ever seen .
> http://imageevent.com/firesat/strangedaysstrangeskies?z=3&c=4&n=1&m=-1&w=4&x=0&p=14
> 
> ...



I'm pretty sure that "crop dusting" as it is known occurs in most or all Australian states. Could be wrong there but that's my understanding.

Only difference in Tas is that one of the crops is trees. Farmers literally puting in a whole crop of nothing but trees. Not really a wise idea IMO but I'll give the politics a rest and avoid mentioning whose idea it was in the first place.


----------



## metric (25 March 2008)

the debate over IF chemtrails exist is over. the question is why it is happening.

google chemtrails...


----------



## 2020hindsight (25 March 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> Just wait until we use all the conventional natural gas trying to cut emissions from power stations then end up mining methane, losing most of it to the atmosphere in the process, to make motor fuel, plastics and fertilizer.



...
we need some more of those fire eating dragons m8


----------



## metric (26 March 2008)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=544088&in_page_id=1770

It was the coldest Easter in the UK for more than 40 years - and we may not see spring weather until April


By TOM KELLY - More by this author  »

Last updated at 10:08am on 25th March 2008

 Comments (37) 

The icy Easter weekend was declared the coldest for 44 years yesterday as forecasters warned of more bad weather for the rest of the month. 

Snow and sleet storms made it a miserable trip home from the bank holiday break for up to 16million motorists last night. 

And the Met Office could not offer any solace to those returning to work this morning after the first white Easter for more than a decade. 

click on link above to continue..


----------



## --B-- (26 March 2008)

metric said:


> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=544088&in_page_id=1770
> 
> It was the coldest Easter in the UK for more than 40 years - and we may not see spring weather until April
> 
> ...




when its cold its "climate change"

and when its hot its "global warming"

its simple really...

(well thats the tactic of the AGW hypist nutters who regularly distort facts to convince the gullible public we're all about to die...)


----------



## Wysiwyg (26 March 2008)

--B-- said:


> when its cold its "climate change"
> 
> and when its hot its "global warming"
> 
> ...





Good point --b--, i hope you believe that the governments of the world need to implement changes to reduce fossil fuel pollution. 

I`m in oilers so it is hypocritical of me to say. Matter of fact human life is one big hypocrisy.


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 March 2008)

Well it's damn cold down here right now. 9 degrees outside, heading down to 7 overnight with a top of 14 tomorrow. Can I claim that to be global cooling?

With the above normal ice buildup around the world I'm starting to seriously doubt the whole global warming thing. Believed it until now, even done my own experiments in the lab. But when ice keeps building up it starts to look rather iffy.


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 March 2008)

*Remember , we are talking about GW now, (not AGW) - and so many of you blokes seem to be happily putting yourselves into category 1 in the poll. *

So - based on a few cold days, (whether England or Aus) - I hope you don't mind if I smile while you confidently announce that global warming is wrong  - (and don't forget that Adelaide has just had a once in 3000 year event with its 15 day string of hot days) 

http://www.bom.gov.au/lam/climate/levelthree/climch/clichv3.htm
Note the logo that the BOM use. - 
Tell you what - you blokes give me a forecast of the weather (short term weather or long term weather/climate), - and suppose it disagrees with BOM - then maybe you won't be offended if I take their opinion over your self-proclaimed expertise. 



> Long-Term Temperature Variations in Australia
> Temperature variations over Australia during the past century have been consistent with global trends in showing an increase in the mean temperature (average of daytime maximum and overnight minimum temperatures) over most of the continent. The last two decades have been particularly warm, with many of the warmest years on record having occurred during the 1980s and 1990s.
> 
> Temperature Moderation
> ...




PS Don't ask me why smurf - but Northern Tas is apparently gonna experience stronger global warming than Hobart


----------



## wayneL (26 March 2008)

Should we have taken the climate scientists hypotheses as gospel in the 70's when they told us all to start planning our igloos?

Pffffft

As far as Australia and one in 3000 year events... ummm, just how many years of accurately recorded temps do we have for Adelaide?

We don't know whether the last 200 years has been the anomaly or not. One in 3000 indeed.

Pffffft 

Fat tails my friend.


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 March 2008)

Nassim Taleb: 

"Extremistan: the province where the total can be conceivably impacted by a single observation." 

http://www.isse.ucar.edu/extremevalues/extreme.html

wayne - please clarify - are you now saying that GW is wrong ?

 or that AGW is wrong ?


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 March 2008)

My point is simply that most of the more recent data I can find points to warming having stopped a decade ago. 

This Summer was hot and dry. It's claimed as proof of climate change.

Last Winter was outright freezing across SE Australia. Not a word is said in relation to climate change.

Rather obvious bias in reporting there IMO. Why are we constantly being told to act without up to date reporting of actual events?

Maybe it's real, I suspect it is to some extent. But that's no reason not to tell both sides of the story and engage in proper science. The failure to do so is making me, and no doubt many thinking others, increasingly suspicious. If you're telling the truth then generally you don't need to hide the facts...


----------



## wayneL (26 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Nassim Taleb:
> 
> "Extremistan: the province where the total can be conceivably impacted by a single observation."
> 
> ...



I'm saying that GW could be right, it could be wrong. 

* The "warming data" AKA the hockey stick graph has been challenged.
* "We" are not given all the data, only what they want us to see.
* Scientists are infamous (they are human after all, subject to all cognitive biases that the average schmuck is) for distorting or omitting data to suit their hypotheses. (Both sides of the debate to be fair)
* As far as the 3000 year event... That's just sh!te, built on a scientific and statistical foundation of sh!te, that any grade 10 science pupil could rapidly expose as sh!te.

Humans have the capacity to change climate, but it won't be due to CO2. As I keep saying _ad nauseum_... wrong target.

Deforestation, environmental degradation & general pollution are far more pressing, yet these schmucks do SFA about that.

Follow the money.


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 March 2008)

well wayne, you say it's sh1te.. (grade 10 students etc)
not sure how you draw that conclusion, but IFF he conceded it might be 1500 year  - would you call that irrelavant as well .?

btw , same odds (allegedly) as throwing 12 heads in a row. 

so for 1500 year event you only need 11 heads in a row I'm guessing. 

Anyway, I'm not your competition in this argument - this bloke is.  

Note that it's a 1 in 3000 year event in Adelaide, and 1 in 200 year in Loxton. 

http://news.theage.com.au/adelaide-heatwave-one-in-3000-years/20080318-2034.html



> Dr Grace has been working with the South Australian Research and Development Institute (SARDI) Climate Applications Unit to gain a better understanding of heatwaves in wine growing regions of the state.
> 
> He has developed what is believed to be the first heatwave occurrence model, based on statewide dating back more than 100 years, and statistics from the past 30 years collected at the Bureau of Meteorology at Kent Town in Adelaide.
> 
> ...


----------



## wayneL (26 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> well wayne, you say it's sh1te.. (grade 10 students etc)
> not sure how you draw that conclusion, but IFF he conceded it might be 1500 year  - would you call that irrelavant as well .?
> 
> btw , same odds (allegedly) as throwing 12 heads in a row.
> ...



Mate, comparing the linear to the chaotic is, dare I say, sh!te.

Comparing the probabilities of a coin toss to weather events is like comparing (I was going to say apple to oranges, but no) a mustard seed to a whirlwind.

Once more, to suggest a normal distribution of outcomes in weather events is at best, naive , and at worst, outright manipulation.

It is a complete prostitution and bastardization of statistics.


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 March 2008)

wayneL said:


> Mate, comparing the linear to the chaotic is, dare I say, sh!te.
> 
> Comparing the probabilities of a coin toss to weather events is like comparing (I was going to say apple to oranges, but no) a mustard seed to a whirlwind.
> 
> ...



well if we were talking bridges, 
and there was a 97% confidence that a certain load would not be exceeded in a given period of time

then that would be pretty close (call it identical) to a 1 in 32 chance of it being exceeded. 

and likewise, it would be the exactly the same as throwing a coin 5 times and gettting 5 heads. (2^5) . (quick calc) 

why can't you compare coins with probability of return periods?


----------



## wayneL (26 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> well if we were talking bridges,
> and there was a 97% confidence that a certain load would not be exceeded in a given period of time
> 
> then that would be pretty close (call it identical) to a 1 in 32 chance of it being exceeded.
> ...




A/ I thought you knew something about statistics.
B/ You need to do some reading on chaos theory.

Coin tossing distributions are deterministic and normal in distribution.

Weather distributions are chaotic (in the physics sense) and would have some level of kurtosis. How much, the IPCC shill does not reveal, if indeed that is even able to be determined given such a small sample size.

To reveal the effects of small sample size, have a toy around with sigma on stock market returns, it will reveal this guy as the muppet he is.


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 March 2008)

wayneL said:


> A/ I thought you knew something about statistics.
> B/ You need to do some reading on chaos theory.
> 
> Coin tossing distributions are deterministic and normal in distribution.
> ...



wayne
you are out of step with the designer of every bridge you have ever been across.
cos "100 year return period" (wind flood whatever), and "1 chance in 100 of happening in any given year" are treated as near as dammit identical. (no need to go to 5 decimal points in these things btw)


----------



## wayneL (26 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> wayne
> you are out of step with the designer of every bridge you have ever been across.
> cos "100 year return period" (wind flood whatever), and "1 chance in 100 of happening in any given year" are treated as near as dammit identical. (no need to go to 5 decimal points in these things btw)



Bridge design is a whole 'nuther bowl of wax, and for the purposes of this discussioin, entirely irrelevant.


----------



## wayneL (27 March 2008)

Small sample sizes on chaotic systems:

If we accept that the stock market is a chaotic system, then we can model sigma on various sample sizes. The stock market is handy in this regard in that we have a 3000 event sample size to play with. (while not claiming any similarity to weather patterns, just an exercise in statistics)

Looking at the SP500, sigma (defined historical volatility - annualized) using a 3000 event sample is 18%.

However, if we use a 200 day sample size (roughly the sample size available with Adelaide weather) we have a significant variance of sigma over the last 2,800 days with a low of ~9.5% and a high of ~29%. Enough to blow apart assumptions based on small sample sizes.

Just as option writers with rigid assumptions of sigma based on small sample sizes get themselves blown up, weather assumptions of _x_ years events based on the last 200 years data would appear to be ludicrous.


----------



## numbercruncher (27 March 2008)

Another worrying sign from our warming oceans 



> WASHINGTON (AFP) - Antarctica's massive Wilkins Ice Shelf has begun disintegrating under the effects of global warming, satellite images by the University of Colorado's National Snow and Ice Data Center showed.
> 
> The collapse of a substantial section of the shelf was triggered February 28 when an iceberg measuring 41 by 2.4 kilometers (25.5 by 1.5 miles) broke off its southwestern front.
> 
> That movement led to disintegration of the shelf's interior, of which 414 square kilometers (160 square miles) have already disappeared, scientists say.




http://au.news.yahoo.com/080326/19/169kq.html


----------



## The Ferret (27 March 2008)

Slightly off topic... but somehow relevant to debate about greenies and the quoting of studies....

"....Plastic bag threat to sea life 'exaggerated'...."

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23438890-2,00.html


----------



## --B-- (27 March 2008)

oh it may be off topic in the strictest sense ferret, but its quite relevant in the sense that the AGW "evidence" is extremely contentious and its certainly a trait of greeny nutters to misrepresent the truth to push their own agenda.


----------



## The Ferret (27 March 2008)

--B-- said:


> oh it may be off topic in the strictest sense ferret, but its quite relevant in the sense that the AGW "evidence" is extremely contentious and its certainly a trait of greeny nutters to misrepresent the truth to push their own agenda.




Indeed... I specifically liked the following...



> Clean Up Australia chief executive Kerrie-Ann Johnson yesterday insisted the impact of plastic bags on marine life had not been exaggerated. "It is a very big issue," Ms Johnson said.
> 
> Asked to identify studies supporting her claim, Ms Johnson said one by the Australian Marine Conservation Society had concluded that 90 per cent of albatross chicks had bag remnants in their gullets.
> 
> AMCS national campaign manager Craig Bohan said his organisation had not conducted any such study.




lol....


----------



## The Ferret (27 March 2008)

And for those who don't think that the "green movement" is dangerous...

"...UN urges caution in biofuel use..."

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23438886-2,00.html

We can all thank green hysteria for untold suffering thrust upon the worlds poorest.


----------



## Aussiejeff (27 March 2008)

The Ferret said:


> And for those who don't think that the "green movement" is dangerous...
> 
> "...UN urges caution in biofuel use..."
> 
> ...





Have to agree with that sentiment, Ferret... prioritising the conversion of food staples to provide fuel for motor transport (rather than to feed the starving masses of the planet) smacks of moral ineptitude.

Back to school for you, Mr President...... PRE-school that is, son....


AJ


----------



## noco (27 March 2008)

I cannot believe all the hysteria about G.W. being caused by Green House Gas Emissions.
The Sun is made of 90% hydrogen and has massive explosions on a daily basis.Explosions as big as 1million Hiroshima atom bombs. Surely this must explain the effect it would have on Earth; something that has been going on for millions of years. The Sun's rays radiate out in all different directions and if Earth is in the path of those rays it no doubt may effect our climate.
Does anyone know how Greenland got its name?
When Greenland was invaded by the Vikings some 1000years ago it was covered with lush green grazing land where cattle grazed and crops were grown.Hence it received the appropriate name.
Since that period, Greenland became covered with ice in a mini ICE AGE.
It is only in recent years Greenland has once again reverted back to what it was 1000 years ago; a lush green country where the Greenlanders are again grzing cattle and growing their own crops.
They are now a multi billion dollar economy and rubbing their their hands together.
There were no Green House Gas  Emissions 1000 years ago.
Must make one think about all the hype that is going on at present.
It would appear Mr.Rudd may have been  a bit impetuous in signing the Kyoto Protocol.I don't think he realised what it  will cost the average working family that he soooo compassionate about.
Will be interesting to see the outcome!


----------



## Aussiejeff (27 March 2008)

numbercruncher said:


> Another worrying sign from our warming oceans
> 
> http://au.news.yahoo.com/080326/19/169kq.html




Fear not, numbercruncher! In a few thousand years, we should be heading into another Ice Age, if the Deuterium records are consistent (we are at or just past what would appear to be another "warm period" peak).... then again, are we heading into un-charted water where we can throw out all this old, hoary, scientific data? 

Maybe in the interim few thousand years before a definite LONG TERM trend is apparent, we should ditch this generic *global warming* (GW) media tag for a new tag  - *LOCAL CLIMATE VARIABILITY* or LCV!  

The attached radiosonde readings graph is interesting though .... note the recent cooling trend of the outer atmosphere compared to the warming trend of the surface and lower atmosphere levels. Could that be a case of higher "greenhouse" gas levels reducing the transfer of surface heat out to space while increasing the amount of heat held nearer the surface? 

Hmmmm.... watch this space .... in 10,000 years .....???

AJ


----------



## derty (27 March 2008)

Seriously, noco, is it the phrasing of poor and ill though out arguments like these that gives the no camp a bad name at times.



noco said:


> The Sun is made of 90% hydrogen and has massive explosions on a daily basis.Explosions as big as 1million Hiroshima atom bombs. Surely this must explain the effect it would have on Earth; something that has been going on for millions of years. The Sun's rays radiate out in all different directions and if Earth is in the path of those rays it no doubt may effect our climate.



The Sun is a main sequence star and at it's core it is a seething mass of nuclear fusion. The surface volatility we see is the released nuclear energy from the core convecting to the surface in a one million year journey. There are sunspot cycles that area a result of the extremely twisted and convoluted magnetic field of the Sun though these variation only amount to a less than 1% variation in brightness. There are some large eruptions and solar storms, though the Earth is protected from most of the energy from these by the magnetosphere. 

The length of time for the energy to convect to the surface allows a homogenisation of any core irregularities and as a result the Sun is very stable at the moment and has been for a significant chunk of geological time. Any events at the core that will cause serious variations will be due to major events such as the helium core becoming large enough to enter into the next phase of element production. The Sun us expected to remain on the main sequence for the next 5  Billion years or so.If the Sun was wildly variable, conditions would not have remained constant enough for life to have got where it is. 




noco said:


> Does anyone know how Greenland got its name?
> When Greenland was invaded by the Vikings some 1000years ago it was covered with lush green grazing land where cattle grazed and crops were grown.Hence it received the appropriate name.
> Since that period, Greenland became covered with ice in a mini ICE AGE.
> It is only in recent years Greenland has once again reverted back to what it was 1000 years ago; a lush green country where the Greenlanders are again grzing cattle and growing their own crops.



um, there are ice cores from Greenland that date back 1000's of years. Also it is rumoured that the Green bit was a sales pitch to try and get people to settle in 'Green'land (the settlements of people that did go all died out too as it was not green), but it is also though to be a mistranslation of Gruntland (meaning ground-land). 
It was never green.


----------



## metric (27 March 2008)

sun flares affect the earth each day, depending on severity. large clusters of solar flares effect satelites, electronic stuff, cause skin cancers. the sun is not a harmless constant like derty suggests. 

russian scientists have stated the earth is going into a cooling stage due to a low cycle of sun flares. i guess the GW deciples have to attack any science that denies the existance of their 'god'.


----------



## wayneL (27 March 2008)

derty said:


> um, there are ice cores from Greenland that date back 1000's of years. Also it is rumoured that the Green bit was a sales pitch to try and get people to settle in 'Green'land (the settlements of people that did go all died out too as it was not green), but it is also though to be a mistranslation of Gruntland (meaning ground-land).
> It was never green.



Ummmm, A bit fast and loose with the facts there matey.

http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/


----------



## derty (27 March 2008)

metric said:


> sun flares affect the earth each day, depending on severity. large clusters of solar flares effect satelites, electronic stuff, cause skin cancers. the sun is not a harmless constant like derty suggests.
> 
> russian scientists have stated the earth is going into a cooling stage due to a low cycle of sun flares. i guess the GW deciples have to attack any science that denies the existance of their 'god'.




I never said it was harmless, just relatively constant. It is the variation of the Sun's brightness that will effect temperatures on Earth. Solar storms/flares are charged particles and not photons, they do not equate to brightness. 

The next sunspot cycle has apparently commenced recently, so it looks like we are not entering into an extended solar minimum as has been touted.


----------



## metric (27 March 2008)

derty said:


> The next sunspot cycle has apparently commenced recently, so it looks like we are not entering into an extended solar minimum as has been touted.




so you admit conflicting science. how did you choose the 'greater flares' science?


----------



## The Ferret (27 March 2008)

wayneL said:


> Ummmm, A bit fast and loose with the facts there matey.
> 
> http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/




lol. Thats gold Wayne.

Also, check out this story/video from Foreign Correspondent that I watched last year. Folks in Greenland say they are stoked about GW!

http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2007/s2014173.htm

You can follow links to transcript or video of story... I note that the story also mentions Greenlands' previous warm climate...


----------



## Wysiwyg (27 March 2008)

From the website Fate of the Greenland Vikings, good yarn too.



> In time he granted her a small church *6.5 feet wide *and *11.5 feet **long*, with room for *20 to **30 worshipers*.




at least the church was warm. :


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 March 2008)

The Ferret said:


> lol. Thats gold Wayne.
> 
> Also, check out this story/video from Foreign Correspondent that I watched last year. Folks in Greenland say they are stoked about GW!
> 
> ...






> Most of the news about climate change is understandably gloomy.
> 
> But a little reported side of the debate is the unexpected positive effect for people living in cold climate countries.
> 
> ...




Here's an excerpt from that link you posted ferret

and you wonder why we think you blokes are carrying on like schizophrenics on this 



> Temperatures in Greenland have risen by two degrees over the past decade, and as a result, the ice cap is melting faster than previously



.


----------



## The Ferret (27 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Here's an excerpt from that link you posted ferret
> 
> and you wonder why we think you blokes are carrying on like schizophrenics on this
> 
> .




2020 misses the point again... must be blinded by the melting snow.

2020 also misses the finer point of social interaction again. Saying that you think "us blokes" carry on like "schizophrenics" shows a terrible understanding of mental illness and does nothing to further your arguement. In fact, it reveals a very, very poor set of social skills & debating skills. Childish in the extreme...


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 March 2008)

ok ferret
let's start back at square one
is it getting hotter?
or isn't it?


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 March 2008)

The Ferret said:


> Slightly off topic... but somehow relevant to debate about greenies and the quoting of studies....
> 
> "....Plastic bag threat to sea life 'exaggerated'...."
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23438890-2,00.html




this post sickens me ferret.  Ignorance - sheer ignorance. 

Clipperton Reef ... up near Mexico -  pollution, plastic etc etc 

  Clipperton's Dirty Secret 

check out the vocal at the 2m 30s mark

then try this (and it really should make you sick - assuming youhave any interest in what damage we are doing - or maybe have done a bit of scuba diving perhaps) ..

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/oceans/la-me-ocean2aug02,0,3130914.story



> Plague of Plastic Chokes the Seas
> template_bas
> template_bas
> On Midway Atoll, 40% of albatross chicks die, their bellies full of trash. Swirling masses of drifting debris pollute remote beaches and snare wildlife.
> ...


----------



## doogie_goes_off (27 March 2008)

Pity the poll is long closed, I just found my soapbox. "Other" with reasons - there is no reliable evidence of global warming, just climate change. Potential for long term variation and cause and effect is mostly theory as with all science. Show me a prediction of temperatures from '95 or so that is accurate today and I may change my tune, however root cause will still require debate. I tend not to read what those who must justify their own existence (climate modellers) write. I support the don't pollute line but until C02 is credibly a pollutant I breathe, drive, consume and fart (methane in this case). Stop population growth (Costello wrongly encouraged it) if you want to make a difference, the difference I make is I make informed decisions when time allows (you ony get so much time and decisions are imperative to the enjoyment of life).


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 March 2008)

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/oceans/la-me-ocean2aug02,0,3130914.story
continued...



> Albatross fly hundreds of miles in their search for food for their young. Their flight paths from Midway often take them over *what is perhaps the world's largest dump: a slowly rotating mass of trash-laden water about twice the size of Texas.*
> This is known as the Eastern Garbage Patch, part of a system of currents called the North Pacific subtropical gyre. Located halfway between San Francisco and Hawaii, the garbage patch is an area of slack winds and sluggish currents where flotsam collects from around the Pacific, much like foam piling up in the calm center of a hot tub.
> 
> Curtis Ebbesmeyer has been studying the clockwise swirl of plastic debris so long, he talks about it as if he were tracking a beast.
> ...


----------



## The Ferret (27 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> this post sickens me ferret.  Ignorance - sheer ignorance.
> 
> Clipperton Reef ... up near Mexico -  pollution, plastic etc etc
> 
> ...





Nope... doesn't sicken me. Takes more than a few dead birds to "ruffle my feathers".

What sickens me is the money we waste on this rubbish while humans (not birds) starve to death. What sickens me is corruption that denies people in third world countries the benefits of capitalism. What sickens me is the fact that people complain about an interest rate rise here or there while people are getting hacked to death with machetes O/S as part of everyday community life. The list goes on...

What sickens me even more is the utter hypocrisy of the western green left who are so keen to deny developing countries their bounty while they sit here on their PC's, in their comfy warm houses, driving nice cars and flying in planes. Also sickens me to think of the millions of people worldwide who are suffering untold hardship and starvation due to high food costs.. thanks to the brilliant idea to turn food into fuel (another great green idea).

These are but a few of the things that sicken me 2020. Dead birds? No... I guess it's all about priorities. But hey... you are allowed yours, as I am mine.


----------



## doogie_goes_off (27 March 2008)

A few dead birds has nothing to do with Global Warming does it? Unless those birds were escaping a rain of plastic bags because there is such convection in our atmosphere from the overwhelming heat? It's preety cold where I sit at my computer. (Note - also off the subject - the copper I use I would like to come from the FNT copper mine, why deny others development for an emotion?).


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 March 2008)

The Ferret said:


> Nope... doesn't sicken me. Takes more than a few dead birds to "ruffle my feathers"..



go watch sbs now then ( sydney time) 
get an education on this matter

ferret 
you are a one aren't you 
you post  that the plastic situation is exaggerated 
I post evidence that says you are wrong 
 suddenly it becomes a judgement matter -  suddenly you're mother teresa's long lost brother
 birds less important than people etc


----------



## Wysiwyg (27 March 2008)

2020 .. it may only be 10% of the human population that ignorantly dispose of containers/wrappings etc. so most are conscientious of disposing to a designated rubbish collection point.
I`t just that 10% is about 600 million people that are un-educated,ill-informed and unconscious.Thanks for raising the awareness.

note ..  numbers above are for conversation.


----------



## The Ferret (27 March 2008)

doogie_goes_off said:


> A few dead birds has nothing to do with Global Warming does it? Unless those birds were escaping a rain of plastic bags because there is such convection in our atmosphere from the overwhelming heat? It's preety cold where I sit at my computer. (Note - also off the subject - the copper I use I would like to come from the FNT copper mine, why deny others development for an emotion?).




Would you believe I was going to edit my previous post to include the FNT issue??

This is exactly what I'm talking about!! These people WANT the mine, they WANT to develop their community and improve their lives. But no.. purists here in good ol' comfy AU want to deny them because it's "special"... THIS is what sickens me!!

You can have your dead birds.... save the people for Christs sakes. Save them from the western green left hypocrisy.


----------



## The Ferret (27 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> go watch sbs now then ( sydney time)
> get an education on this matter




I don't use TV as my source for "education"... anyone can can get a degree in "watching"...


----------



## The Ferret (27 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> go watch sbs now then ( sydney time)
> get an education on this matter
> 
> ferret
> ...




Birds less important than people? Absolutely. Surely you would agree? No?


----------



## wayneL (27 March 2008)

The Ferret said:


> You can have your dead birds.... save the people for Christs sakes.



Let's save both.



The Ferret said:


> Save them from the western green left hypocrisy.



I'm a card carrying greenie, but I gotta agree with this point. Hypocrisy in the extreme.


----------



## doogie_goes_off (27 March 2008)

Saving birds is easy - don't strip their habitat, replant local species and not just the overstory. Saving humans is valid as long as we're not breeding like rabbits. Saving humans is easy too, just that everyone cares about themselves and their own kind/clan/associates etc more. So if you care you can save whatever you like, just figure out what worth caring about, it's the opinion most worth having.


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 March 2008)

The Ferret said:


> Slightly off topic... but somehow relevant to debate about greenies and the quoting of studies....
> 
> "....Plastic bag threat to sea life 'exaggerated'...."
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23438890-2,00.html



Still very relevant though.

We are told that the plastic threat isn't so bad only AFTER politicians have committed to action.

We are hearing about increasing ice build up etc only AFTER politicians have committed to address climate change.

We were told that there were downsides to tree plantations only AFTER vast areas were planted at the greens' urging.

We heard that woodheaters and cars collectively emit far more dioxin than even the worst pulp mill only AFTER Wesley Vale was canned and many spent years out of work as a consequence.

And so on.

Spot the pattern? Exaggerate the threat or extent of damage for as long as it takes to get something banned, stopped or otherwise changed to suit the Greens. Then, and only then, admit that it wasn't so bad after all.

The wanted nuclear, then they didn't. They wanted coal, now they don't. They wanted oil, now they don't. They wanted wind, now they don't. They didn't want gas, now they do. And they hated hydro, now it's "clean and green". And yes, the greens DID at one point advocate logging the forests (true).

I'm all for protecting the environment and I'm probably more active than most in terms of actually doing something. But this constant changing of every major policy position back and forth simply to stop any form of development is beyond a joke. It's nothing more than opposing whatever is currently proposed in order to keep themselves in business and others out of business.

Basslink was a truly classic example. An idea first seriously promoted by greens. An idea subsequently revived a decade later and actively pursued by the Greens. And then they launched a major campaign against it the moment it was announced that it would actually be built...  

Judge for yourself. Some say it's the environment but observation of actual events tells me it's about politics first and foremost with the environment being nothing more than a means to justify the end.


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 March 2008)

doogie_goes_off said:


> Saving birds is easy - don't strip their habitat, replant local species and not just the overstory. Saving humans is valid as long as we're not breeding like rabbits. Saving humans is easy too, just that everyone cares about themselves and their own kind/clan/associates etc more. So if you care you can save whatever you like, just figure out what worth caring about, it's the opinion most worth having.



careful doogie
 ferret wants to encourage rabbit-like behaviour
then again that was last week 
who knows this week


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 March 2008)

The Ferret said:


> This is exactly what I'm talking about!! These people WANT the mine, they WANT to develop their community and improve their lives. But no.. purists here in good ol' comfy AU want to deny them because it's "special"... THIS is what sickens me!!



Now where have I come across that scenario a few times before...


----------



## wayneL (27 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> careful doogie
> ferret wants to encourage rabbit-like behaviour
> then again that was last week
> who knows this week



I have nothing against rabbit-like behaviour,  just think it's a good idea to prevent the natural result to some extent.


----------



## The Ferret (27 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> careful doogie
> ferret wants to encourage rabbit-like behaviour
> then again that was last week
> who knows this week




Again, playing the man, not the ball. Desperate....


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 March 2008)

for the record, 
"encouraging rabbit like behaviour" in ferret's opinion translates as 
"it 's a great idea to increase the population" 

PS feel free to disagree ferret.
but that's what you said last week (paraphrased).

I'm not playing the man - I'm just trying to see how many personalities  I'm dealing with here


----------



## Wysiwyg (27 March 2008)

wayneL said:


> I have nothing against rabbit-like behaviour,  just think it's a good idea to prevent the natural result to some extent.




It`s human nature (loosely coined term that is) to keep people alive and we find that `preventing` people from dying of natural causes is happening more .Obviously from this 2002 table the Africans have the higher rate and `most` countries are having more births than deaths.World population will multiply rapidly in better economic times for the so called 3 rd. world countries.

http://encarta.msn.com/media_701500528/birth_and_death_rates_by_country_or_region.html


----------



## derty (28 March 2008)

wayneL said:


> Ummmm, A bit fast and loose with the facts there matey.
> 
> http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/



While your linked article supports Erik misusing 'Green' I concede that my stating Greenland was never green was wrong and I agree I was a bit hasty to get my reply out especially given that my sloppy reply was to counter a sloppy point made. I was relaying a couple things I remember from a Uni lecture. The main point that I should have made more saliently was that Greenland, while inhabited, and albeit unsuccessfully in the end, was never a lush green place. There was a pull back of ice in some coastal areas that allowed limited habitation, though almost all of the island remained covered with ice. As it is today. 

The ice cover is over 110,000 years old and several km thick in places: 
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/eismayewski.html. 

The period Erik enticed people to Greenland was during a warmer period, the ice records show similar warm periods over the previous 1500 years (see attached image) The Norse settlement milestones correspond with following points:
3. Norse settlement of Greenland starts just before the year 1000.
4. Thule Inuit move into northern Greenland in the 12th century.
5. Late Dorset culture disappears from Greenland in the second half of the 13th century.
6. The Western Settlement disappears in mid 14th century.
7. In 1408 is the Marriage in Hvalsey, the last known written document on the Norse in Greenland.
8. The Eastern Settlement disappears in mid 15th century.
from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Greenland

The use of the Greenland argument neither supports or discounts AGW really. Temperatures in Greenland have been as warm as they are now, the question is will they continue to get warmer. 



metric said:


> so you admit conflicting science. how did you choose the 'greater flares' science?



I'm sorry metric I'm not really sure what I am admitting and are not really sure what you are asking me here.


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 March 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> It`s human nature (loosely coined term that is) to keep people alive and we find that `preventing` people from dying of natural causes is happening more .Obviously from this 2002 table the Africans have the higher rate and `most` countries are having more births than deaths.World population will multiply rapidly in better economic times for the so called 3 rd. world countries.
> 
> http://encarta.msn.com/media_701500528/birth_and_death_rates_by_country_or_region.html



wys
I sorted that data - birth rates descending, death rates ascending.
Africa sure features.
Urgent need for education!
and tell the Pope to butt out with his religious "opinion" on contraception - sheesh. 

Here's the top of the list...

PS wouldn't it be brilliant if we all acted like Austria 
equal birth and death rates .  !  (9.6 and 9.7 resp) 

or better still Germany ( births 9.0, deaths 10.4) 

PS Australia 12.7, 7.3
NZ 14.2, 7.6  - a few sheep thrown in.


----------



## metric (28 March 2008)

Perhaps The Climate Change Models Are Wrong
Lorne Gunter, National Post
Published: Monday, March 24, 2008

Bob Strong, Reuters
They drift along in the worlds' oceans at a depth of 2,000 metres -- more than a mile deep -- constantly monitoring the temperature, salinity, pressure and velocity of the upper oceans.

Then, about once every 10 days, a bladder on the outside of these buoys inflates and raises them slowly to the surface gathering data about each strata of seawater they pass through. After an upward journey of nearly six hours, the Argo monitors bob on the waves while an onboard transmitter sends their information to a satellite that in turn retransmits it to several land-based research computers where it may be accessed by anyone who wishes to see it.

These 3,000 yellow sentinels --about the size and shape of a large fence post -- free-float the world's oceans, season in and season out, surfacing between 30 and 40 times a year, disgorging their findings, then submerging again for another fact-finding voyage.

It's fascinating to watch their progress online. (The URLs are too complex to reproduce here, but Google "Argo Buoy Movement" or "Argo Float Animation," and you will be directed to the links.)

When they were first deployed in 2003, the Argos were hailed for their ability to collect information on ocean conditions more precisely, at more places and greater depths and in more conditions than ever before. No longer would scientists have to rely on measurements mostly at the surface from older scientific buoys or inconsistent shipboard monitors.

So why are some scientists now beginning to question the buoys' findings? Because in five years, the little blighters have failed to detect any global warming. They are not reinforcing the scientific orthodoxy of the day, namely that man is causing the planet to warm dangerously. They are not proving the predetermined conclusions of their human masters. Therefore they, and not their masters' hypotheses, must be wrong.

In fact, "there has been a very slight cooling," according to a U.S. National Public Radio (NPR) interview with Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, a scientist who keeps close watch on the Argo findings.

Dr. Willis insisted the temperature drop was "not anything really significant." And I trust he's right. But can anyone imagine NASA or the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- the UN's climate experts -- shrugging off even a "very slight" warming.

A slight drop in the oceans' temperature over a period of five or six years probably is insignificant, just as a warming over such a short period would be. Yet if there had been a rise of any kind, even of the same slightness, rest assured this would be broadcast far and wide as yet another log on the global warming fire.

Just look how tenaciously some scientists are prepared to cling to the climate change dogma. "It may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming," Dr. Willis told NPR.

Yeah, you know, like when you put your car into reverse you are causing it to enter a period of less rapid forward motion. Or when I gain a few pounds I am in a period of less rapid weight loss.



http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1810#comment-44109


----------



## Julia (28 March 2008)

Thanks, Metric.

The writer of that article will be howled down and despised.
Anyone who doesn't attach themselves to the current fanatical obsession with man's foul emission causing behaviour is a heretic at the very least.

Ah, how we love our self-flagellation.


----------



## metric (28 March 2008)

Julia said:


> Ah, how we love our self-flagellation.




i dont have to do that to myself anymore. im married.....


----------



## wayneL (28 March 2008)

metric said:


> Perhaps The Climate Change Models Are Wrong...
> http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1810#comment-44109




Wow that's a bombshell. They have a name for that in archeology and anthropology - Ooparts. (*O*ut *O*f *P*lace *ART*ifact*S*)

Any artifacts that don't conform to the prevailing archeological or anthropological theory is disregarded and discarded to museum basements, perhaps never to see the light of day again.


----------



## Aussiejeff (28 March 2008)

We could all debate this "climate" thingy until we go blue in the face or explode in a puff of superheated steam ....

The ONLY REAL FACTS we have to work with are:

(a) It will take MANY years and probably lifetimes to figure out what MIGHT be happening to the future long term trend.

(b) We have NO WAY of currently confirming whether the past long term trend (see re-worked graph) is going to follow the RED arrow direction (warmer, possible?) or the BLUE arrow direction (cooler, possible/probable?). 

Whenever there is a fork-in-the-road situation, debate WILL rage. IMO that is where we currently lie...and given the looooong time frames involved here, I'll predict that we'll be a-raging on this subject for millenia!!


----------



## metric (28 March 2008)

wayneL said:


> Wow that's a bombshell. They have a name for that in archeology and anthropology - Ooparts. (*O*ut *O*f *P*lace *ART*ifact*S*)
> 
> Any artifacts that don't conform to the prevailing archeological or anthropological theory is disregarded and discarded to museum basements, perhaps never to see the light of day again.




along those lines wayneL...  www.celticnz.co.nz


----------



## wayneL (28 March 2008)

metric said:


> along those lines wayneL...  www.celticnz.co.nz




Intriguing. Something to keep me quiet for a bit. Thanks for the link.


----------



## The Ferret (28 March 2008)

The sham that is "earth hour"...

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23444989-5007146,00.html

I liked..



> When a fixed effect is included for the whole day, the drop in electricity use during Earth Hour is statistically indistinguishable from zero




and...



> So why does The Age exaggerate?
> 
> Because it's on a campaign to persuade, not inform, which is why it also won't report other awkward facts.
> 
> ...


----------



## Wysiwyg (28 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> wys
> I sorted that data - birth rates descending, death rates ascending.




2020 where is the comparitive table to show birth rates going down and death rates going up?

Also when there is 20 billion people on the planet how easy will it be to pull back the growth?The governments will have to enforce birth control via reduction and you can bet that the freer world will take that like a block of concrete.The side effects of Chinese policy .... 



> China imposed strict population controls, including a policy of one child for almost all couples, in the 1970s to limit growth of its huge population. One side effect has been a jump in gender selection of babies. Traditional preferences for a son mean some women abort their baby if an early term sonogram shows it is a girl.


----------



## Julia (28 March 2008)

The Ferret said:


> The sham that is "earth hour"...
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23444989-5007146,00.html
> 
> ...



Yes.  Pure symbolism.  All part of the hysteria.


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 March 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> 2020 where is the comparitive table to show birth rates going down and death rates going up?
> 
> Also when there is 20 billion people on the planet how easy will it be to pull back the growth?The governments will have to enforce birth control via reduction and you can bet that the freer world will take that like a block of concrete.The side effects of Chinese policy ....



wys
not sure I'm keeping up here.
But there was a spreadsheet attached to post #858.
and the table there was the start of the sequence, 
and this is the end of the sequence 

- after it was sorted by birth rate decreasing first
and then -second level sort - by death rate increasing ( only relevant when both death rates have the same birth rate obviously. )

Note how educated Europe features at this end of the scale.  
whereas uneducated Africa features at the top end. 
...


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 March 2008)

:topic
PS Italy third lowest birth rate ..

Just goes to prove 
either
a) the rhythm method is damn near the best contraceptive technique out there , 
or
b) most Italians ignore the Pope. :eek3:


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 March 2008)

It's Earth Hour and climate change overdrive right now in Tas. Hard to turn the news on and hear about any other subject. Even Premier Paul Lennon is on the bandwagon with the lights out and full scale energy audits in.

Now, I'm sure this has everything to do with the environment and nothing to do with those 18% full Hydro storages.  The plane starts flying for the 2008 cloud seeding season next week - better hope it works or we'll be getting Earth Six Months rather than Earth Hour. 

Not to worry though, physical construction has apparently commenced on the pulp mill...


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 March 2008)

well my attitude (given the consequences of getting this wrong) is as follows:-

until AGW is proven to be wrong
 then I'm happy that the leaders of the world are ignoring the nay-sayers. 
(call this option 3 above - as a fallback)

PS to say nothing of the fact that there will be benefits on side issues like general pollution.


----------



## wayneL (28 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> well my attitude (given the consequences of getting this wrong) is as follows:-
> 
> until *A*GW is proven to be wrong



It has.



2020hindsight said:


> then I'm happy that the leaders of the world are ignoring the nay-sayers.



Call people taking in ALL the facts "naysayers" says more about your own biases than anything else.



2020hindsight said:


> PS to say nothing of the fact that there will be benefits on side issues like general pollution.



Nonsense.

Perhaps air pollution to a small degree, but general pollution and environmental degradation continue unabated under the CO2 bandwagon.


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 March 2008)

wayneL said:


> It has.
> 
> Call people taking in ALL the facts "naysayers" says more about your own biases than anything else.
> 
> ...




here's another bit of mind taxing logic wayne..

suppose that the global warming is not AGW 
although I note you say on alternate threads that it isn't getting warmer...

but suppose we try to take on a serious managerial role here and produce some AGC.  - to combat the natural GW if you wish.  Now there's a concept isn't it?


----------



## wayneL (28 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> here's another bit of mind taxing logic wayne..
> 
> suppose that the global warming is not AGW
> although I note you say on alternate threads that it isn't getting warmer...
> ...




Well, in light of recent evidence on this thread, I have to ask, what global warming? We are seeing some climatic variance, but that is entirely normal in a chaotic system. I am even prepared to accept anthropomorphic regional climate change in certain circumstances, due to deforestation, anthropomorphic desertification of, heat sink effect of cities etc. This does greatly concern me, but the IPCC ignores this by supporting the co2 ruse.

But broad based warming? Dunno about that one. Small sample sizes, sigma, leptokurtic distribution curves, an' all that.

Can you say "hidden agenda"?


----------



## doogie_goes_off (29 March 2008)

First get definite proof that CO2 levels on a scale seen today = AGW (if there is GW) then think about creating AGC. The golden rule of life... think before you act, how much you think is up to you but I put it to 2020 HS that *maybe* you have thought just enough to be dangerous a  nay-sayer to evidence in your own right? Apologies if this is seen as playing the 'man' as I value multiple opinions.


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 March 2008)

Well here's what the IPCC say about "proof" of a serious predicament.
They won the Nobel Peace Prize.  I mean - all very well to say they've been proven wrong, that AGW is proven wrong, that someone (qualifications unspecified half the time) disagrees with them.    But these blokes are seriously intelligent people.  With serious hours of research behind their comments.  And they post the level of confidence in their predictions - according to various scenarios.  They also post models of chaotic systems to demonstrate that, yes they even understand the basics. 

Also here's a time clock where 12 hours represents the age of the earth, and man turns up at 17 seconds to 12 (or 34 seconds to midnight if you prefer a 24 hour simile.)   What destruction we have caused! 

The other factors are the pollution that would be simultaneously addressed. 
The deforestation - (that would be addressed by tackling GW)
The fauna that would benefit from correcting this for a start. 
Instead of that, some here want to chase the dollar till the world says " enough already, I give in" .

Or of course there's the cunning way to do it. ....

Like Johnny Howard ... " Anthropomorphic Global Warming is nonsense! -  But in ANY case, my government has achieved more to combat it than those who signed Kyoto"   

Well hellooo ... what are you saying here Johnny? you are a greeny deep down? - or just a hypocrite?

this talk of global warming up with which I will not put
I wouldn’t touch Kyoto with a barge pole forty foot
but I’ll do it surreptitiously, and take all the carbon credit
cos there’s benefits to being green,  but don’t tell them I said it.

The graph btw is what will happen if we reduce CO2e emissions by 1.9% per annum and so avoid more than a 2degC rise in temp.  - Is that asking to much?
Is that "hysteria" as Julia wants to call it?
Is total inaction - "wasting our time" even monitoring the situation according to half the posts here - is that not a more serious sin?
If monitoring the situation and reporting on alarming scientific conclusions is a sin, or hysteria, then so be it - but there's a lot to lose here.  And a lot to gain ( not just CO2 wayne). 

Even the economy will improve.  (or do we all disagree with Stern and Garnaut as well.)
Hey - I don't expect some of you to address any of those points about IPCC  - you'd prefer to say "nay"  - or is it "neigh"? and take the punt that this predicament will somehow sort itself out by itself.


----------



## The Ferret (29 March 2008)

Computer modelling.... rubbish in-rubbish out.


----------



## wayneL (29 March 2008)

Well well well!

The unequivocal seems to be equivocal after all.

The IPCC and the AGW alarmists are looking more and more foolish as time goes by. 

Watch them defend their funding to the death. LOLOL


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 March 2008)

2020 said:
			
		

> well my attitude (given the consequences of getting this wrong) is as follows:-
> until AGW is proven to be wrong ... .
> then I'm happy that the leaders of the world are ignoring the nay-sayers.
> (call this option 3 above - as a fallback)






			
				wayne said:
			
		

> It has (been proven wrong)



Wayne
you said there was proof that AGW had been proven wrong
a) got any evidence?
b) don't forget it's a chaotic system - and that works both ways 
difficult to prove it's "yes"
and difficult to prove it's "no"


ferret
like I said, I didn't expect many to answer those points in my post.
so much easier to say "bs" - and / or watch as fauna and other bird life is destroyed  - who gives a damn - takes more than that to ruffle your feathers. 

Or watch as the extent of deserts increases.   "Civilisation leaves bludy great footprints - they are called deserts" .

Personally I'd be real happy if my grandkids could scuba dive on the Barrier Reef (and a stack of other reefs around the world also heading deeper and deeper into troubled times) as I 've been lucky enough to do.  And that some of the living colour was around to witness.


----------



## The Ferret (29 March 2008)

I remember reading this sometime back... It's an open resignation letter penned by Chris Landsea (see bio) who at the time was working on hurricane links with GW with the IPCC. Essentially, he resigned because he recognised the IPCC was a sham and he could no longer be involved with a process that had become based on poor science and political ends.

Chris Landsea- About.



> Christopher Landsea, formerly a research meteorologist with Hurricane Research Division of Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory at NOAA, is now the Science and Operations Officer at the National Hurricane Center. He is a member of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorological Society. He earned his doctoral degree in Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University. Over the years, his work has involved the general hurricane FAQ currently on the National Hurricane Center website and the Atlantic hurricane reanalysis. He has been focal on the link between global warming and hurricane intensity change.




Open Letter



> Dear colleagues,
> 
> After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns.
> 
> ...




Interesting....


----------



## metric (29 March 2008)

sorry to interupt wayneL and 2020.

failed (one could argue robbed) presidential candidate al bore says GW non believers are like fringe groups whom dont believe in the moon landing. IMO, he can throw 911 in with that, weapons of mass destruction, and a heap of other stuff... 


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/27/60minutes/main3974389.shtml?source=RSS&attr=HOME_3974389

CBS) Self-avowed "P.R. agent for the planet" Al Gore says those who still doubt that global warming is caused by man - among them, Vice President Dick Cheney - are acting like the fringe groups who think the 1969 moon landing never really happened, or who once believed the world is flat. 

The former vice president and former presidential candidate talks to 60 Minutes correspondent Lesley Stahl in an interview to be broadcast this Sunday, March 30, at 7 p.m. ET/PT. 

Confronted by Stahl with the fact some prominent people, including the nation’s vice president, are not convinced that global warming is man-made, Gore responds: "You're talking about Dick Cheney. I think that those people are in such a tiny, tiny minority now with their point of view, they’re almost like the ones who still believe that the moon landing was staged in a movie lot in Arizona and those who believe the world is flat,” says Gore. "That demeans them a little bit, but it's not that far off," he tells Stahl


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 March 2008)

Any comment about Johnny Howard's attitude ferret?  

Or Stern or Garnaut ?
Is there perhaps an economic advantage in following any of them on this?

Next question..
Are we wasting our time to even monitor it?:
Or are you so sure that it doesn't matter
and the only important factor here is the mighty dollar  - 
in your pocket not the third worlds.


----------



## wayneL (29 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Wayne
> you said there was proof that AGW had been proven wrong
> a) got any evidence?
> b) don't forget it's a chaotic system - and that works both ways
> ...



* You don't read or ignore posts (eg metric's argo post)
* You confuse AGW with environmental degradation. They are two separate issues.
* You want your grandkids to snorkel the barrier reef? Better make a personal stand and stop building bridges for BHP. It might not directly help the reef, but it would be a great example... especially to your grandkids.


----------



## The Ferret (29 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Any comment about Johnny Howard's attitude ferret?
> 
> Or Stern or Garnaut ?
> Is there perhaps an economic advantage in following any of them on this?
> ...




Not wasting time monitoring- By all means, monitor it.

Had you actually taken the time to read all my previous threads you would have seen that "the mighty dollar" is the only thing that would save us from GW, if it were true, and that "the mighty dollar" and free trade is the only thing that will save third world countries.

Do try and keep up....


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 March 2008)

Meeting between Rudd and Bush - no mention of GW.  
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/29/2202407.htm?section=justin



> Rudd strong on Iraq troop withdrawal
> Posted 1 hour 53 minutes ago
> Updated 38 minutes ago
> United States President George W Bush says Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is a loyal ally on Iraq despite the planned withdrawal of Australian troops.
> ...




bit like last time they met in Sydney I guess...  




> US PRESIDENT George W. Bush was shocked that Labor leader Kevin Rudd did not seriously raise climate change during their private chat at APEC, sources close to the meeting claimed yesterday.
> 
> Sources said Mr Rudd never mentioned the topic during his 45-minute chat with Mr Bush on Thursday, despite Labor's strong position on global warming.
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 March 2008)

wayneL said:


> 1. You don't read or ignore posts (eg metric's argo post)
> 2. You confuse AGW with environmental degradation. They are two separate issues.
> 3. You want your grandkids to snorkel the barrier reef? Better make a personal stand and stop building bridges for BHP. It might not directly help the reef, but it would be a great example... especially to your grandkids.




1. so are you saying that the evidence that AGW is proven wrong is given in someone else's post?

2. no , I am saying that the other matters come with it - reforestation is a way to get carbon credits yes? - directly encouraged by Kyoto incidentally. 

3. I know enough to know there's damn all I can do alone.  Somehow I have to try to convince others to participate.  - the good news is that the general community - including some pretty smart university dudes - are totally behind the message of Kyoto, whether prophylactic or otherwise.   And so - looking at that poll at the start of this thread - what (at most) 17% of people on this forum think (i.e. ignore Kyoto) doesn't really matter in the end.  

btw, the goal of 1.9% reduction in CO2e per annum is manageable , whether or not BHP has bridges.

PS that's 1.9% per annum - provided we start today (i.e. to limit temp rise to 2degC)  
it's 2.5% per annum if we wait 7 years


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 March 2008)

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=198186
......
ask people who have lived with apes, and chimps, and "kings of beasts"
which laws of jungle matter most, and which ones matter least
man, self-styled "Lord of all things"  – surely gets the dunce's cap
and God must rue he made man king – and give the rest a rap. 

you search the traits of this small world, the “traitors” carved in granite
you’ll see how much God screwed up / erred - when he chose the world to "man-it"
you watch "the Planet of the Apes", which God has “boy-and-girled” 
...
which other creature first pack rapes - and then PACK RAPES THE WORLD. ?


----------



## Aussiejeff (29 March 2008)

If all respondents to this heated thread turned off their PC's for one hour and refused to type another word during that time (I know, that sort of restraint would be extrememly difficult), at least 25kg of CO2 could be saved.......


LOL



AJ


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 March 2008)

Aussiejeff said:


> If all respondents to this heated thread turned off their PC's for one hour and refused to type another word during that time (I know, that sort of restraint would be extrememly difficult), at least 25kg of CO2 could be saved.......



AJ  - you're right of course - 
83% here are pro Kyoto - 
I think some of the rest are gonna die in the trenches rather than accept any positives of supporting reforestation, reduction in CO2 and other pollution, a new mindset that makes us more environmentally aware about all manner of environmental matters - recycling, waste, plastic, methane, mercury, CFC pollution, wildlife awareness, alternative cleaner energy, less fossil fuels etcetc  . 

Think I'm wasting my breath trying.


----------



## The Ferret (29 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=198186
> ......
> ask people who have lived with apes, and chimps, and "kings of beasts"
> which laws of jungle matter most, and which ones matter least
> ...




WTF??? 2020... I think it's time for a bex and a good lie down, yes? You've got a big night tonight.. "Earth Hour". Maybe you should have a break, collect your thoughts and have a snooze...


----------



## The Ferret (29 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> AJ  - you're right of course -
> 83% here are pro Kyoto -
> I think some of the rest are gonna die in the trenches rather than accept any positives of supporting reforestation, reduction in CO2 and other pollution, a new mindset that makes us more environmentally aware about all manner of environmental matters - recycling, waste, plastic, methane, mercury, CFC pollution, wildlife awareness, alternative cleaner energy, less fossil fuels etcetc  .
> 
> Think I'm wasting my breath trying.




lol... The irony is lost....

Fact is we could turn off for 20 hours and nothing would be saved. Power station still produces the same amount of energy, still burns the same amount of coal. The only thing that changes is the output to the grid. Nothing saved... nothing gained.... no reduction of anything.


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 March 2008)

The Ferret said:


> Maybe you should have a break, collect your thoughts and have a snooze...



no ferret, 
 I'm off for a walk in the bush - go visit with my god


----------



## The Ferret (29 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> no ferret,
> I'm off for a walk in the bush - go visit with my god




No worries. Say hello to L Ron Hubbard for me.


----------



## wayneL (29 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> 1 I know enough to know there's damn all I can do alone.  Somehow I have to try to convince others to participate.



So you do nothing, yet try to convince others to do something?

You are a true Al Bore disciple. You've got religion.


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 March 2008)

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=276555&highlight=raping#post276555

you are wrong about me doing nothing.  ok.

PS wayne I notice you say you do something about it. 
including less co2
can I ask why?


----------



## wayneL (29 March 2008)

I've changed my mind.

I've bought a Hummer and I drive it around as much as possible. I was trying to prevent snow falling at easter ever again. But alas, that is futile, co2 <> AGW. Now I just drive it around to get my fair share of oil before it runs out

I have a question for you: Do umbrellas cause rain?


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 March 2008)

wayneL said:


> I've changed my mind.
> 
> I've bought a Hummer and I drive it around as much as possible. I was trying to prevent snow falling at easter ever again. But alas, that is futile, co2 <> AGW. Now I just drive it around to get my fair share of oil before it runs out
> 
> I have a question for you: Do umbrellas cause rain?




do umbrellas cause rain - ? - nope.  ( perhaps imaginator - or a red indian raindancer would disgaree) 

question for you in return 
Have you joined your friend David Suzuki's Nature Challenge yet?

PS as for the hummer and the nonreply to my previous question / post - you will no doubt accuse me of a disingenuous post in the near future


----------



## wayneL (29 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> do umbrellas cause rain - ? - nope.  ( perhaps imaginator - or a red indian raindancer would disgaree)
> 
> question for you in return
> Have you joined your friend David Suzuki's Nature Challenge yet?



I'm not into bragging about my environmental credentials, it is unverifiable anyway. But as a general point Suzuki's challenge is aimed at the Canadian consumer. Some people here in the UK and Europe already go much further than what he is suggesting.

Re umbrellas: Did you miss the point?


----------



## metric (29 March 2008)

wayneL said:


> I've changed my mind.
> 
> I've bought a Hummer and I drive it around as much as possible. I was trying to prevent snow falling at easter ever again.




 :jerry


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 March 2008)

wayneL said:


> I'm not into bragging about my environmental credentials, it is unverifiable anyway. But as a general point Suzuki's challenge is aimed at the Canadian consumer. Some people here in the UK and Europe already go much further than what he is suggesting.
> 
> Re umbrellas: Did you miss the point?




excerpt from Suzuki's website.. 
I think you'll find he is less locally minded or zenophobic than you imagine. ...
I think yuo'll find he is a massive cosmopolitan mind 



> Our Mission
> 
> The David Suzuki Foundation works through science and education to protect the diversity of nature and our quality of life, now and for the future.
> 
> ...




But true, there is a Canadian bias.
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/About_us/FAQs.asp#nc03



> I already do the Nature Challenge actions, do I still need to join?
> By taking the Challenge you're joining a community with hundreds of thousands of Canadians! By simply joining, you’re sending a powerful message to our leaders that we want a clean, healthy future. After all, if thousands of people are making sustainable choices in their daily lives, shouldn't the corporate and government leaders make smarter choices too?




True also, you put him up as the scientist yuo believe in  - that is until he came down strong on the AGW issue.

PS you'd better explain the umbrella point.  I assumed something about cause and effect.


----------



## metric (29 March 2008)

AGW? what is this? a new religious branch of the GW religion? seriously...? what does the 'A' stand for?


----------



## wayneL (29 March 2008)

As a climate scientist, Suzuki makes a great zoologist.

I'd love to stick around and indulge in this futile pissing contest a bit longer, but I'm going to :sleeping:

...and I'm sure everybody else is finding it all a bit tiresome by now.


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 March 2008)

metric said:


> AGW? what is this? a new religious branch of the GW religion? seriously...? what does the 'A' stand for?



anthropogenic = manmade
I keep getting it mixed up and calling it anthropomorphic  - but that's incorrect. (or is it   - I mean - to say that the climate is getting ugly, could be either  .. )


> an·thro·po·mor·phic
> –adjective 1. ascribing human form or attributes to a being or thing not human, esp. to a deity.
> 2. resembling or made to resemble a human form: .






> an·thro·po·gen·ic
> adj.   Of or relating to anthropogenesis.  Caused by humans: anthropogenic degradation of the environment.


----------



## metric (29 March 2008)

as a zoologist or scientist, suzuki makes a fine specimen of a 60 something fitness guru. ever seen him without his shirt on?


----------



## 2020hindsight (29 March 2008)

wayneL said:


> As a climate scientist, Suzuki makes a great zoologist.
> 
> I'd love to stick around and indulge in this futile pissing contest a bit longer, but I'm going to :sleeping:
> 
> ...and I'm sure everybody else is finding it all a bit tiresome by now.




well I'm finding it a bit strange that you keep accusing me of doing nothing. 
(and keep accusing Suzuki of being ignorant on climate change.  He has specialists in his David Suzuki Foundation btw. )

Last time (time before whatever) you challenged me on "what do you do anyway?"  (this one about 6 months ago) I posted the following ..



> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=211968&highlight=conferencing#post211968
> 
> I try to do these things by video conferencing - it has cost me jobs in the past - big clients can be very demanding. They say "meeting next week, be there or be square". I usually reply "surely video would be adequate?". I have seriously had to fly to interstate meetings which were always going to be a waste of time ... ahh I'll skip the detail. I'm sure you know what I'm talking about.




And guess what ! 
That's what Suzuki mentions first and foremost amongst things that we can do. (refer the jpeg.)  

http://www.davidsuzuki.org/latestnews/dsfnews03280801.asp

There's also more news imminent on this from Bangkok. 



> David Suzuki Foundation sending observer to Bangkok for UN climate change talks
> March 28, 2008 The David Suzuki Foundation is sending an official observer to next week's United Nations climate change conference in Bangkok, Thailand.
> 
> Dale Marshall, the Suzuki Foundation's climate change policy analyst, will be in Bangkok to monitor the conference. He will be available from March 31st to April 4th to speak to Canadian journalist about the talks.
> ...






			
				2020 said:
			
		

> ever seen him without his shirt on?



metric ... artists impression ok ..


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> well my attitude (given the consequences of getting this wrong) is as follows:-
> 
> until AGW is proven to be wrong
> then I'm happy that the leaders of the world are ignoring the nay-sayers.
> ...



Agreed with the notion of taking the cautious approach.

However, my underlying concern is this. Worldwide total emissions continue to INCREASE, not decrease, and will do so despite Kyoto. I thus see little point in simply transfering emissions from one country (such as Australia) to another (eg China) if that does not reduce total emissions. Indeed transfering energy intensive industry to developing countries will, since it boosts their domestic economy and thus consumption, increase emissions rather than reduce them.

So it's worthwhile to reduce total emissions. But it's worse than useless, actually it's quite negative in terms of the environment, to shift industry from the likes of Australia to developing countries. Might alleviate poverty etc, but it's bad news for the environment. And all this is supposedly about helping the environment, not redistributing wealth.

As for general pollution, downsides etc I will say this. 

1. The single largest beneficiary of the move to cut emissions (in absolute terms) is likely to be nuclear power. That undeniably has an environmental downside despite any CO2-related benefits it may offer.

2. It would be virtually impossible for any conservation argument to prevail in a conservation versus non-fossil energy debate today. So that means wind farms get built no matter what the consequence for birds etc (and those consequences can be pretty serious in some locations).

Same with hydro dams etc - arguing wilderness versus cheap bulk power is one thing and not too hard for the wilderness side to win when the other side is, in practice, a largely financial argument. But it would be _much_ harder for the wilderness side to win if the other side is CO2. I honestly don't think the wilderness would win out when 93% of the population is worried about CO2, many to the point of virtual hysteria.

So I don't think it can be said that there are no negative environmental consequences of reducing CO2 emissios. It's easy to say let's cut emissions - until you think about how we're actually going to do it.


----------



## Wysiwyg (29 March 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> I think some of the rest are gonna die in the trenches rather than accept any positives of supporting reforestation, reduction in CO2 and other pollution, a new mindset that makes us more environmentally aware about all manner of environmental matters - recycling, waste, plastic, methane, mercury, CFC pollution, wildlife awareness, alternative cleaner energy, less fossil fuels etcetc  .
> 
> Think I'm wasting my breath trying.




If everyone looked closer at the ground they would see alot of paper,plastic,rubber and cigarette butts etcetera ready to be washed down the storm water drains and into the rivers and the floaters out to the ocean.
Just look at the ground and it is there, it is every bludy where.**** for brains types just drop stuff on the ground.They don`t care.

Another train of thought  .... someone else will pick it up.In generations ahead the 2020`s will be looking at the start of it, now and us, and asking why wasn`t something done.Why did we let the Earth get to this stage.

Nip it in the bud and nip it in the bud NOW.

Teach the kids, no drum it into the kids about recycling, reduction and responsibility.The new 3 r`s.


----------



## Julia (29 March 2008)

wayneL said:


> I'd love to stick around and indulge in this futile pissing contest a bit longer, but I'm going to :sleeping:
> 
> ...and I'm sure everybody else is finding it all a bit tiresome by now.




On the contrary, Wayne.  Remarks by yourself and The Ferret have provided me, at least, with much amusement.


----------



## metric (29 March 2008)

we had lunch today with some friends of ours. maria is a school teacher, of retirement age. she doesnt really need to work as they are well off. however, they both do, as it keeps them active.

maria is leaving teaching this year as she doesnt agree with some of the stuff she is being instructed to teach. one of the subjects is GW. study material is supplied, complete with al gores video 'the incomplete truth'. (sic) (parts of the video)

children are also being marked on this propaganda. i cant wait till they try and teach this dribble to my kids.


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 March 2008)

wayne said:
			
		

> I have a question for you: Do umbrellas cause rain?




...


			
				Mark-Twain said:
			
		

> "A banker is a fellow who lends you his umbrella when the sun is shining,
> but wants it back the minute it begins to rain."


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 March 2008)

metric said:


> we had lunch today with some friends of ours. maria is a school teacher, of retirement age. she doesnt really need to work as they are well off. however, they both do, as it keeps them active.
> 
> maria is leaving teaching this year as she doesnt agree with some of the stuff she is being instructed to teach. one of the subjects is GW. study material is supplied, complete with al gores video 'the incomplete truth'. (sic) (parts of the video)
> 
> children are also being marked on this propaganda. i cant wait till they try and teach this dribble to my kids.



Reminds me of being taught the folly of coal-fired power in grade 3 and yes we were marked on it. The main point wasn't climate change but the finite nature of fossil fuels and atmospheric pollution, including mercury, sulphur etc emissions.


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 March 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> Reminds me of being taught the folly of coal-fired power in grade 3 and yes we were marked on it. The main point wasn't climate change but the finite nature of fossil fuels and atmospheric pollution, including mercury, sulphur etc emissions.




not sure I'm with you smurf. 
you mean like the lessons of queenstown?
PS thanks for links to dam storages.


----------



## metric (31 March 2008)

http://oism.org/pproject/


19,000 scientists cant be wrong...?

petition.

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. 

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth. 


This petition has been signed by over 19,000 American scientists.


----------



## noco (31 March 2008)

Global Warming! What Global Warming?
Have just read an interesting article in today's Courier Mail written by Bob Carter who is A Research Professor in geology and enviromental science at James Cok University, Townsville.
He states and I qoute:
"During the 20th century, global temperature initially increased for several decades,decreased for the next 30 years during mid-century, and then increased again towards the end of the century."
"Not significantly, the most recent mild warming is termed the "late 20th century" warming because it terminated in 1998. The best available temperature measurements from satellites show that between 1998 and 2007, for nine full years, average global temperature remained unchanged - at the same time as carbon dioxide levels increased by almost 5 per cent. Interestingly, given that some physicists are predicting the start of a new episode of solar - driven cooling, global temperatuture has now been cooling for the three years since 2005".  Unqote.
Suggest all should read the whole article which was in reply to Tony Blair supporting Al Gore.


----------



## 2020hindsight (31 March 2008)

noco said:


> Global Warming! What Global Warming?
> Have just read an interesting article in today's Courier Mail written by Bob Carter who is A Research Professor in geology and enviromental science at James Cok University, Townsville.




noco - I'll post this for you. 
Sure Bob Carter is heavily against IPCC.
I still think he's wrong when he says we shouldn't act in any case - GIVEN that 
a) reforestation will benefit
b) general pollution will decrease
c) critters will benefit

finally
d) the planet is no place to gamble with

PS you'll like these videos...
 Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? - Pt 1 of 4 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8  Climate change - Is CO2 the cause? - Pt 2 of 4 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY  Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? - pt 3 of 4 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause?- pt 4 of 4


----------



## 2020hindsight (31 March 2008)

btw, watch Bob Carter in this youtube to see how he goes in a discussion...

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=211880&highlight=durkins#post211880

 Great Global Warming Swindle ABC Debates Part 4/9

  Great Global Warming Swindle ABC Debates Part 5/9 

as wayne would say, as a climatologist, Bob Carter makes a great geologist


----------



## 2020hindsight (31 March 2008)

For the best summary of all ( imo) watch the first 3m30s of this one ... 

 "Nick Rowley, Climate Change Strategist" - of UK gives a great summary...
balancing the risks of getting this wrong


> on the subject of observed global warming , if you look at the great bulk of the world's climate scientists, around 98% of them really accept that basic science, - that is as close to certain - almost -  as you can get - in relation to science.
> 
> Yet there are uncertainties, essentially about the future - and a future prediction is always going to be uncertain - and that's why, when you look at the IPCC reports, you have scenarios - lower, middle, and upper scenarios - and for mine, I very much hope they are wrong .
> 
> ...



..2m00mark

transcript continues at 3.00m mark



> (someone who has been mentioned by Bob Carter), David Attenborough , someone who has taken quite a while to get involved in this debate ,  has put together an absolutely fantastic documentary which is looking at THE LEVEL OF RISK  that the world is placed under by this problem
> and problem it is
> and big problem it is.



   Great Global Warming Swindle ABC Debates Part 6/9

PS Heck - even go on to listen to Dr Nikki Williams, CEO , NSW Minerals Council, Director of the Aust Coal Assocn, 



> the industry for at least a decade in Australia, has acknowledged the reality of global warming, the contribution of man-made CO2 - and other greenhouse gases -  and importantly recognises that the potential risks associated with climate change are such that action is required.   We HAVE to take action, and we as a producing industry have an important roll there,,, etc


----------



## 2020hindsight (31 March 2008)

continued ...
"*essentially it's not the science, it's actually the policy responses to the magnitude of the risk. *"


----------



## wayneL (6 April 2008)

I just wake up to 4 inches of snow cover here in Cheltenham. The neighbors are throwing snowballs at each other. lol

6th April, Mid Spring nearly.


----------



## The Ferret (6 April 2008)

wayneL said:


> I just wake up to 4 inches of snow cover here in Cheltenham. The neighbors are throwing snowballs at each other. lol
> 
> 6th April, Mid Spring nearly.




Wait for it! I can hear the pro-GW crowd now...

Oh, it's another example of weather unpredictablity caused by GW. Yet another clear example of GW..lol


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 April 2008)

no 
ferret you're wrong
you see, it isn't a mono-step rise, whereby one summer it's 14.62degC, and the next it's 14.63 or 14.64 or whatever.
It doesn't work like that.

Furthermore what happens in UK is not representative of Australia, (or the world), is it.  
That's not a question, btw, it's a statement. 

So why not spend a bit of time observing all the climatic trends happening here in Aus yes?
Now that is a question.   

btw, maybe spend a moment contemplating that a lot of forest has been cleared this year ( this clock suggests 3.4 thousand hectares)

and a lot of species have been lost (7000 this year ) .

I 'd take those numbers with a couple of kilos of salt - 
 but rest assured there is a trend to lesser forest, and fewer species yes?

PS that's another question - not that I expect you to care .


----------



## The Ferret (6 April 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> no
> ferret you're wrong
> you see, it isn't a mono-step rise, whereby one summer it's 14.62degC, and the next it's 14.63 or 14.64 or whatever.
> It doesn't work like that.
> ...




LOL! Ha ha.... thank you 2020.. thankyou.

It's like shooting fish in a barrel....... classic....


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 April 2008)

Here's the "snapshot" at 11 Jan this year for comparison

http://www.poodwaddle.com/worldclock.swf

PS 86 days ago, or 12.3 weeks if you prefer)


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 April 2008)

The Ferret said:


> LOL! Ha ha.... thank you 2020.. thankyou.
> 
> It's like shooting fish in a barrel....... classic....



hey ferret 
 don't take on those fish in a mind duel whatever you do !!
you might end up going "glub glub"


----------



## Pronto (7 April 2008)

This was quoted in Tim Blair's blog today. It's by Nigel Lawson in the UK Daily Mail on 5/4/08...

_Those who wish to order us how to run our lives, faced with the uncomfortable evidence that economic prosperity is more likely to be achieved by less government intervention rather than more, naturally welcome the emergence of a new licence to intrude, to interfere, to tax and to regulate: all in the great cause of saving the planet from the alleged horrors of global warming ... 

People still feel the need for the comfort and higher values that religion can provide; and it is the quasi-religion of green alarmism, of which the global warming issue is the most striking example, which has filled the vacuum, with reasoned questioning of its mantras regarded as little short of sacrilege. _

Just about sums it up for me.


----------



## --B-- (7 April 2008)

Pronto said:


> This was quoted in Tim Blair's blog today. It's by Nigel Lawson in the UK Daily Mail on 5/4/08...
> 
> _Those who wish to order us how to run our lives, faced with the uncomfortable evidence that economic prosperity is more likely to be achieved by less government intervention rather than more, naturally welcome the emergence of a new licence to intrude, to interfere, to tax and to regulate: all in the great cause of saving the planet from the alleged horrors of global warming ...
> 
> ...




absolutely.


----------



## metric (7 April 2008)

Pronto said:


> This was quoted in Tim Blair's blog today. It's by Nigel Lawson in the UK Daily Mail on 5/4/08...
> 
> _Those who wish to order us how to run our lives, faced with the uncomfortable evidence that economic prosperity is more likely to be achieved by less government intervention rather than more, naturally welcome the emergence of a new licence to intrude, to interfere, to tax and to regulate: all in the great cause of saving the planet from the alleged horrors of global warming ...
> 
> ...




me too.


----------



## --B-- (7 April 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> no
> ferret you're wrong
> you see, it isn't a mono-step rise, whereby one summer it's 14.62degC, and the next it's 14.63 or 14.64 or whatever.
> It doesn't work like that.




what are you talking about here 2020? 

you seem confused.

ferret rightly pointed out the ridiculous claims by those pushing the AGW barrow that anything happening in the weather is caused by catastrophic climate change. whether it gets hotter or colder.. its the perfect win win.

no mention of the fact that the whole theory is based on co2 trapping heat in the atmosphere.



> Furthermore what happens in UK is not representative of Australia, (or the world), is it.
> That's not a question, btw, it's a statement.




well youre right there



> So why not spend a bit of time observing all the climatic trends happening here in Aus yes?
> Now that is a question.




its called "global" warming



> btw, maybe spend a moment contemplating that a lot of forest has been cleared this year ( this clock suggests 3.4 thousand hectares)




lol. is that a valid source? please. 

i dont dispute your claim however fail to see how its relevant to this argument other than the simplistic "trees eat co2" doozy. 



> and a lot of species have been lost (7000 this year ) .




can you please provide any credible evidence to back this up?



> I 'd take those numbers with a couple of kilos of salt -
> but rest assured there is a trend to lesser forest, and fewer species yes?




i think you might be getting a little sidetracked 2020.

we all know forests are getting chopped down. they are also being replanted. as for species becoming extinct, please show me some credible evidence.

regardless of these two quite odd tnagents youve gone on, the fact remains that the AGW theory is entirely up for debate and ferret is 100% correct in his statement above.


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 April 2008)

--B-- said:


> i think you might be getting a little sidetracked 2020.
> 
> we all know forests are getting chopped down. they are also being replanted. as for species becoming extinct, please show me some credible evidence.



article in the 22Mar08 copy of NewScientist  - a real win-win. 
titled "Saved? It sounds like a great idea: pay people to stop destroying the rainforest and you'll stave off cliamte change too. "

It goes on to say ..
"reducing deforestation is the cheapest way of cutting global emissions. At about $10 per tonne of CO2 it works out at around half the cost of replacing coal with renewable energy" .  etc  

buy yourself a copy.


----------



## --B-- (7 April 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> article in the 22Mar08 copy of NewScientist  - a real win-win.
> titled "Saved? It sounds like a great idea: pay people to stop destroying the rainforest and you'll stave off cliamte change too. "
> 
> It goes on to say ..
> ...




so youve got nothing?

thought so.


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 April 2008)

--B-- said:


> so youve got nothing?
> 
> thought so.



-B-
(see below)
you're asking me to justify the numbers on that website? (the clock?)
why don't you write to them?
let us know which "stats" they are referring to. 

I said take the detailed numbers with a kilo of salt, yes.
you know what that means?
means I don't think they're necessarily very accurate. (maybe?)

and they only get 0.01 deg per year at that rate, which is a damned site more optimistic that the most optimistic scenario by IPCC. (at least the ones being seriously considered).
So sure - I also reckon that site is "dreaming".

PS - ahh found this.  ..  temp "somewhere between 1.1deg and 6.4 degC"  - so they pick 1.1deg.


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 April 2008)

-B-
are you also in denial that the forests of the world are being cut down (or that species are being lost) at an alarming rate?

are you asking me to prove that as well?


----------



## Wysiwyg (7 April 2008)

2020 my friend, don`t you get what the ferret is trying to say?The majority don`t give two hoots.Human way is much talk and little action.Too little too late.It is sad but true and we can only remind people and do conscientious work.

There is the circle of life which we are part of and swept along with little regard for much more than getting money and sex.


----------



## wayneL (7 April 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> 2020 my friend, don`t you get what the ferret is trying to say?The majority don`t give two hoots.Human way is much talk and little action.Too little too late.It is sad but true and we can only remind people and do conscientious work.
> 
> There is the circle of life which we are part of and swept along with little regard for much more than getting money and sex.



I reckon quite a few more would give a hoot if:


It was a real issue instead of the now transparent fraud it now is.
If those who mouthed off the most didn't hypocritically have enourmous carbon footprints. (like Al Boring)
If they targeted the real polluters instead of putting the onus on Joe Sixpack, who is a minor player and can't make much difference.
If the official GW protagonists, didn't so obviously have their snouts in the public money trough.
If rational objections weren't demonized as heretics by so called scientists.
If data wasn't so subject to selection bias.
If the like of China and other major polluters were subject to the same controls.

... to name a few.

People are smart enough to realize either:


It's BS with an alternative agenda
If it's real, we can't stop it... eat drink and be merry, for tomorrow we die.

Meanwhile, me and missus are playing in April snow. 

TIP: Wear very thick and warm gloves when riding your pushbike in snowy weather.


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 April 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> 2020 my friend, don`t you get what the ferret is trying to say?The majority don`t give two hoots.Human way is much talk and little action.Too little too late.It is sad but true and we can only remind people and do conscientious work.
> 
> There is the circle of life which we are part of and swept along with little regard for much more than getting money and sex.




wys
had a good week last week.  met a few of the US scientists on the radio telescope project. 
btw, they say that , US being the "Conspiracy Centre of the world", that sure enough, someone has come up with a theory that GW is a conspiracy developed by the weather channel .

wayne,  
I was hoping you'd back me on the loss of forest etc at least.  You sure you're a card carrying greenie?

To be honest, that's what Johnny Howard wanted to do - just happens to be in that magazine I mentioned (NewScientist).  Don't tell the blokes round here though that it was Johnny's idea .


----------



## wayneL (7 April 2008)

Taking some forest can be justified in certain instances.

Where I have the challenge is:

When virgin forest is is taken to make consumables or cheap tat (e.g. woodchipping for paper or SE Asian rainforest to make utterly crap furniture that will end up on the tip in 5 years)
When it is taken to fill the guts of the adipose US hamburger consumer (eg The Amazon rainforest to graze Burger King cattle)
When it is taken and the resultant environment is unsustainable and never was going to be sustainable. (eg the Burger King cattle ranches that subsequently cannot sustain the cattle because of soil quality)
When it threatens the survival of species. (eg Orangutans )

I could rant on forever, but it gets me seriously depressed.

Like I keep saying, CO2 is the wroooooong focus.


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 April 2008)

The following appears on Page 16 of the current edition of Warm magazine "Green Issue".

Warm is an electricity industry publication delivered free to everyone in Tas, not available elsewhere but www.warm.com.au is the website - this article doesn't seem to be there however.

The Australian Conservation Foundation was involved with this so it's not a one sided power industry view. And of course the ACF and the Tas electricity industry are opponents from way back.

Construction and renovations 13.1%
Electricity 0.1%
Gas and firewood 1.9%
Other household operations 2.7%
Transport 12.6%
Food 30.6%
Clothing and fabrics 4.1%
Furniture and appliances 4.4%
Books and magazines 2.9%
All other goods and services 27.1%
(Figures do not add to 100% due to rounding)

It's based on consumption, not local production, so reflects the consumption of goods and isn't biased by the types of industries operating in Tas (other than that power generation is very low emission).

Bottom line - changing a few light bulbs won't help much. If you're really worried then don't have children (since they'll need food) and don't renovate anything unless it really needs replacing (that is, don't change just because of some fashion trend).


----------



## wayneL (12 April 2008)

FYI



> *Climate change confirmed but global warming is cancelled*
> Owen McShane
> 
> Unlike so many of the hapless victims on TVOne's daily Crimewatch (also known as One Network News) I have recently been lucky enough to be in two right places at the right time.
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 April 2008)

Well we are at last starting to generate some serious (semi-serious) solar powered electricity. 
Wouldn't it be appropriate if the airconditioners (at least) were run by solar - the hotter it gets, the more power available 

Australia's biggest planned for Coober Pedy (SA)  

http://news.theage.com.au/coober-pedy-to-get-solar-power-station/20080219-1syj.html



> Coober Pedy to get solar power station
> February 19, 2008 - 12:42PM
> Australia's largest solar power station is to be built at Coober Pedy, in South Australia's mid-north, to provide more than 10 per cent of the city's electricity needs.
> 
> ...




Meanwhile, Qld, NT, ACT etc ....  

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...the-solar-block/2007/11/04/1194117879767.html

http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=solar+power+hermannsburg&btnG=Search&meta=

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/18/2192956.htm

PS  wow - 1,860 megawatt hours of power each year.  = enough to run 600 plasma screens (at 350 watts) 24 / 7 -  or maybe that should read 1800 plasma screens for about 8 sunny hours per day (?).      Maybe people should get more social ? - and maybe share plasma screens (?) - and airconditioners etc. 
otherwise $7 million doesn't go very far.  

E&OE


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 April 2008)

well this is what the Instituton of Engineers (Aust) magazine thinks of this


----------



## metric (15 April 2008)

Central Plank Of Global Warming Alarmism Discredited
Inspiration for Al Gore's movie cover, contention that global warming causes intense hurricanes, discredited by professor who first proposed it 

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Monday, April 14, 2008


   One of the central philosophies of climate change alarmism and an image that adorned the cover of Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth - the contention that global warming causes deadly hurricanes - has been completely discredited by the expert who first proposed it. 

Hurricane buff and professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT Kerry Emanuel asserted for over 20 years that global warming breeds more frequent and stronger storms and he shot to prominence just one month before Hurricane Katrina in 2005 when he delivered the "final proof" that global warming was already causing extreme weather events and wrecking livelihoods. 

Emanuel was subsequently acknowledged with a place in Time Magazine's "100 People Who Shape Our World" list. 

Al Gore was so inspired by Emanuel's research that he devoted the iconic front cover image of his 2006 movie An Inconvenient Truth to his warning, portraying a hurricane emerging from a Co2-belching smokestack. 


An inconvenient cover image - Al Gore's depiction of global warming's contribution to hurricanes has been completely discredited. 

(Article continues below)


Unfortunately for the church of environmentalism, who ceaselessly profess to have a monopoly on truth and insist that "the debate is over" on global warming, Emanuel has completely recanted his position and now admits that hurricanes and storms will actually decline over the next 200 years and have little or no correlation with global temperature change whatsoever. 

"Emanuel's newest work, co-authored with two other researchers, simulates hurricane conditions nearly 200 years in the future. The research -- the first to mesh global climate models with small-scale high-resolution simulations of individual storms -- found that while storm strength rises slightly in some areas, it falls in others -- and the total number of worldwide storms actually declines slightly," reports Daily Tech. 

"The new work suggests that, even in a dramatically warming world, hurricane frequency and intensity may not substantially rise during the next two centuries," reports The Houston Chronicle. 

"The research, appearing in the March issue of Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, is all the more remarkable coming from Emanuel, a highly visible leader in his field and long an ardent proponent of a link between global warming and much stronger hurricanes." 

"The models are telling us something quite different from what nature seems to be telling us," said Emanuel, adding, "The results surprised me." 

This bears testimony to the fact that we cannot accept the shrill claims of the alarmists that "the debate is over" on global warming, because to do so would hand control of our future over to bumbling, self-serving control freaks who have been proven wrong time after time. 

How can we let technocrats impose sweeping control measures based on a "consensus" about the effects of global warming that isn’t necessarily correct? Those that propose drastic responses to a "crisis" that isn't even fully understood should be treated with extreme suspicion. 

The admission that global warming has no effect on extreme weather patterns, in addition to last week's report confirming there has been no global temperature increase since 1998, spells disaster for the alarmists and current weather patterns are not doing them any favors either. 

Shortly after China experienced its coldest winter in 100 years and 

to continue, go to link...  http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2008/041408_alarmism_discredited.htm


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 May 2008)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/05/09/2240680.htm?section=justin


> Plan for enviro-friendly burials
> By Leah MacLennan
> 
> Posted 1 hour 1 minute ago
> ...



what's wrong with a bloody big lead sinker - and one last deep dive. 

I heard someone asking - hey - if I'm gonna be buried in a vertical hole made by a post hole digger - 
and it turns out to be a rainy day -
does that mean I'll end up a "stick in the mud" ?


----------



## Whiskers (14 May 2008)

*Killer cornflakes*! 

*Damn headlines!*

Just about put me off my favourite brekky...

until I read the whole story. 



> *Will 'killer cornflakes' be on our tables?*
> Rosemary Desmond | May 13, 2008 - 3:25PM
> 
> Climate change could lead to "killer cornflakes" with the cereal carrying the most potent liver toxin ever recorded, an environmental health conference has been told.
> ...


----------



## Wysiwyg (16 May 2008)

Just caught the tail end of an SBS news story about the rapid melting of the North Pole.Also I think I heard that *Polar Bears are on the endangered **species list*.WTF are we doing?????? 



> North Pole Could Be Ice Free in *2008*
> 
> You know when climate change is biting hard when instead of a vast expanse of snow the North Pole is a vast expanse of water. This year, for the first time, Arctic scientists are preparing for that possibility.


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 May 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> Just caught the tail end of an SBS news story about the rapid melting of the North Pole.Also I think I heard that *Polar Bears are on the endangered **species list*.WTF are we doing??????




don't worry about it wys
it's all a plot by alarmists
let's get out in our hummers and warm things up a bit


----------



## Whiskers (16 May 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> don't worry about it wys
> it's all a plot by alarmists
> let's get out in our hummers and warm things up a bit




Now that's a morbit sense of humour, 2020. :

Yes wysiwyg.

Gaud, some of you fellas have the most extraudinary user names to remember to spell. Have to remember to copy and paste. 

Anyway... I've seen a few satelite shots over the years showing how much it has retreated. One not so young Alaskan glacier tour guide reckons the glaciers have retreated much further in the last few years than he can remember. Some of the smaller ones have dissapeared.

I realise that relatively speaking the 1900's may have been the bottom of a cooler cycle and we are just entering a warmer natural cycle. But even if it's mostly naturaly driven, I worry a bit about how much man made influences could exaggerate that warming.


----------



## Wysiwyg (16 May 2008)

The effects of life in society since the fossil fuel fired industrial age began.With our electric lights and driving automobiles contributing to atmospheric changes.
Can the wheels of progress be stopped.Yes, what would it take.I think human d-evolution is set.Most people don`t really care about the future health of the planet.The cycle is --- born, school, job, car, money, sex, house, die. NEXT.
People focus their attention on absolute rubbish.


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 May 2008)

I'm guessing there's no need to be luddites about this - I'm sure there's a middle road that permits some development (damned site less that we have at the moment I concede)  - being pragmatic - just get that CO2e down by a couple of percent per year - that's what the IPCC boys are proposing as a compromise.


----------



## wayneL (16 May 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> Most people don`t really care about the future health of the planet.The cycle is --- born, school, job, car, money, sex, house, die. NEXT.
> People focus their attention on absolute rubbish.



Regardless of the AGW debate, this is unfortunately all too true.

Status, ultimately at the expense of our children.


----------



## Aussiejeff (17 May 2008)

wayneL said:


> Regardless of the AGW debate, this is unfortunately all too true.
> 
> *Status, ultimately at the expense of our children.*




The Burmese Junta could certainly sympathise with that last sentiment.....



AJ


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 May 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> The cycle is --- born, school, job, car, money, sex, house, die. NEXT.



It's a real worry when you realises that most have done 75% of it before they're an adult. Doesn't leave anything to look forward to apart from a mortgage then death...


----------



## Wysiwyg (17 May 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> It's a real worry when you realises that most have done 75% of it before they're an adult. Doesn't leave anything to look forward to apart from a mortgage then death...




Okay, if the comfort zone is being reached quicker these days (generally speaking) then that leaves a tremendous amount of time for these people to do something positive about the environment.Either on a personal level such as sorting household waste consciously and effectively e.g. paper, glass, aluminium, ferrous and non-ferrous metal and food scraps. 

Or on a local level by maintaining a tidy neighbourhood, participating in (or even organising) clean up days.Educate others, pass the word around that water, energy, plants and animals are precious  or show by example. 

If anyone can think of other ways then fire away.I`m sure someone will wake up.


----------



## The Ferret (19 May 2008)

More rubbish.... when I read this utter, utter, rubbish I just shake my head. Unbelievable....

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23724412-2,00.html


----------



## Wysiwyg (19 May 2008)

The Ferret said:


> More rubbish.... when I read this utter, utter, rubbish I just shake my head. Unbelievable....
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23724412-2,00.html





That`s about as smart as introducing cane toads to eat scarab beetles in Nth. Queensland.
*Before* we do things we must think of the consequences of our actions.This is a consistent flaw in the mind of human and i`m no exception.It doesn`t seem to come naturally and has to be taught.(what are the consequences/effects)



> The natural range of Cane Toads extends from the southern United States to tropical South America. They were deliberately introduced from Hawaii to Australia in 1935, to control scarab beetles that were pests of sugar cane.


----------



## wayneL (19 May 2008)

The Ferret said:


> More rubbish.... when I read this utter, utter, rubbish I just shake my head. Unbelievable....
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23724412-2,00.html




Spectacular own goal.

The quality of climate science proven well dodgy yet again.


----------



## Wysiwyg (19 May 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> - I'm sure there's a middle road that permits some development (damned site less that we have at the moment I concede)  -




A balance can be struck!We can be more conscious about  preserving  life on this planet and live less destructive lifestyles.
There was a  smarty who invented the internal combustion engine.Another must be getting close to showing up again with a renewable energy powered automobile that replaces these mass polluters (and i`m guilty too).Thing is, when we are young we don`t give a damn.

Governments with tax money could make a concerted effort to fast track technology, change now, make the transition to renewables, whatever it takes.


----------



## spooly74 (19 May 2008)

Agree .. complete tosh 

Please tell me this bloke was not one of the scientists used by the IPCC`s model?


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 May 2008)

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


> The Future Eaters enjoyed strong sales and critical acclaim.  .... Fellow activist David Suzuki praised Flannery's "powerful insight into our current destructive path."
> 
> In The Weather Makers: The History & Future Impact of Climate Change, Flannery outlines the science behind anthropogenic climate change. "With great scientific advances being made every month, this book is necessarily incomplete," Flannery writes, but "That should not, however, be used as an excuse for inaction. We know enough to act wisely."
> 
> ...




the man's a genius (imho)   - even Suzuki "praised Flannery's "powerful insight into our current destructive path.""

my money's on Flannery - you blokes can bet on each other


----------



## spooly74 (19 May 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> the man's a genius (imho)   - even Suzuki "praised Flannery's "powerful insight into our current destructive path.""
> 
> my money's on Flannery - you blokes can bet on each other






> Flannery's work in raising the profile of environmental issues was key to his being named Australian of the Year in 2007. Awarding the prize, Prime Minister John Howard said that the scientist "has encouraged Australians into new ways of thinking about our environmental history and future ecological challenges."[12]




Don`t have any issue with this at all....

but on the introduction of sulphur



> "We need to be ready to start doing it in perhaps *five years *time if we fail to achieve what we're trying to achieve."
> 
> He conceded there were risks to global dimming via sulphur.
> 
> "The consequences of doing that are unknown."




:homer:


----------



## wayneL (19 May 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Flannery
> 
> 
> the man's a genius (imho)   - even Suzuki "praised Flannery's "powerful insight into our current destructive path.""
> ...



So you believe it's a great idea? 

The planet is more serious trouble than I thought, but it ain't from CO2.


----------



## Wysiwyg (19 May 2008)

There are natural aerosols and anthropogenic aerosols.The ones we can`t see but know exist.Kind of like out of sight, out of mind.





> Anthropogenic aerosols
> 
> Particles emitted during human activity are called anthropogenic aerosols.  Anthropogenic aerosols can be either large (coarse particles) or small (fine particles).  Dust from roads and construction sites (such as cement works) produces coarse mode anthropogenic aerosols whereas *small fine mode **aerosols are generated from fossil fuel combustion in power generation* *and vehicles* and from high temperature industrial processes such as metal smelting.
> 
> *Many of these aerosol have an impact on our climate*, some also have an impact on our health.  Particle concentrations are high in indoor air and dust mites, fibres, insect sprays and asbestos are all examples of aerosols which can be very dangerous to human health.


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 May 2008)

spooly74 said:


> Don`t have any issue with this at all....
> but on the introduction of sulphur



spooly
whether or not it gets to the point of using sulphur...
think of it this way
he still has 17% of people to convince there's a problem.


----------



## wayneL (20 May 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> spooly
> whether or not it gets to the point of using sulphur...
> think of it this way
> he still has 17% of people to convince there's a problem.



He's probably set back the cause of AGW propaganda by 10 years. The outrage is near unanimous. 

There is a problem, that is that there are nutters, fruit loops and commercial interests dominating the environmental debate.

In that sense, he has done the debate a great favour by alerting people of logic of that fact.


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 May 2008)

Please note Tim Flannery's quotes / references to emergency measure etc:-


> But he says it may be necessary, as the "last barrier to climate collapse."
> 
> "a radical suite of emergency measures "
> 
> ...




Here's a similar article from 18 months ago (Sep 2006)
which in turn is based on 30 yearold technology.

Wigley claims the sulphur would not be dramatic ....

"because his model called for less than 10% additional sulphur dioxide than is emitted by the burning of fossil fuels"

http://tvnz.co.nz/view/page/411749/830969



> Expert: Sulphur to stall global warming
> Sep 15, 2006 2:03 PM
> 
> To stall global warming for 20 years, one climate scientist proposed lobbing sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere, which would work in concert with cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
> ...




There are other "stratospheric aerosols" for the "maintenance of present-day climate" apparently...

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


> Global dimming is the gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth's surface that was observed for several decades after the start of systematic measurements in 1950s. The effect varies by location, but worldwide it has been estimated to be of the order of a 4% reduction over the three decades from 1960–1990. However, since 1990, the trend has reversed.[1]
> 
> It is thought to have been caused by an increase in particulates such as sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere due to human action. The switch from a "global dimming" trend to a "brightening" trend in 1990 happened just as global aerosol levels started to decline.
> 
> Global dimming has interfered with the hydrological cycle by reducing evaporation and may have reduced rainfall in some areas. Global dimming also creates a cooling effect that may have partially masked the effect of greenhouse gases on global warming.


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 May 2008)

National Geographic has a "Special Report Magazine" just out - called "Changing Climate" - check it out at the newsagent

Meanwhile the oceans are becoming more acidic ( purely by the absorption of CO2....

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

Bob Steneck, Prof at Uni of Maine :-  "the rate of acidification is so great... that given the trajectory we are on, reefs can't exist" says Steneck. 

(Acidification plus warming of the ocean etc)

Here's a brief video ... (in fact a string of em - Glaciers, Global Warming 101 etc)

http://video.nationalgeographic.com...-warming-environment/way-forward-climate.html

Incidentally to those who might complain that sulphur might cause some acid rain  (an increase of 10 or 20% whatever over existing) ...   here's another side to that story....  also from National Geographic....



> Some species are thriving in their new climate, .... . The mountain pine beetle, a voracious bug about 3mm long, is having a field day, since warmer summers have allowed it to produce two generations per year instead of one.  Moreover North American winters almost never get down to -40degF any more ( also = -40deg C incidentally)  the temperature needed to kill the bug and its larvae.
> 
> *As a result, the beetle population has exploded across the western US and Canada, killing millions of acres of trees.  Forestry officials  in Canada predict that if the beetle continues to spread at its current rate, 80 percent of Britsh Columbia's mature lodgepole pines - the provinces most abundant commercial specias - will be dead within five years. *


----------



## 2020hindsight (24 May 2008)

A sobering video on the icecap melting , including the difficulties polar bears are facing trying to hunt in an open sea  ....

http://video.nationalgeographic.com...change.html?fs=science.nationalgeographic.com

And this one ... "the next 10 years are probably the most important ever for the earth etc "

http://video.nationalgeographic.com...change.html?fs=science.nationalgeographic.com


----------



## Aussiejeff (24 May 2008)

> Expert: Sulphur to stall global warming
> Sep 15, 2006 2:03 PM
> 
> To stall global warming for 20 years, one climate scientist proposed lobbing sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere, which would work in concert with cuts in greenhouse gas emissions.
> ...




Ummm. What if, after "clever" humankind lobs tonnes of sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere to create a cooling effect, a REAL volcano happens to erupt shortly after and doubles or triples the cooling effect?

Sounds like rolling dice to me.....



AJ


----------



## 2020hindsight (24 May 2008)

Aussiejeff said:


> Ummm. What if, after "clever" humankind lobs tonnes of sulphur dioxide into the stratosphere to create a cooling effect, a REAL volcano happens to erupt shortly after and doubles or triples the cooling effect?
> 
> Sounds like rolling dice to me.....AJ




AJ, this article from 1994/5 analysing the trend of global temp after the 1991 eruption of Mt Pinatubo volcano in the Philippines.

The chart below does indeed show a small dip in the green graph around 1991 ..  but keep in mind the extrapolated graph of where we are heading.... the entire Y axis as drawn is only 1.5degrees.   We are looking at 2 degrees increase (most optimistic scenario). 

This is problem that a half dozen volcanoes will be needed to solve. - and going off every few years to "maintain the dimming". 

 It would be brilliant if there were some volcanoes -  just emerge from the sea like a heaven-sent correction - (avoiding the human chaos that they had around Pinatubo for instance).

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/... PINATUBO (PHILIPPINES)&field=geo&match=exact



> A Global Warming Resumed in 1994, Climate Data Show
> By WILLIAM K. STEVENS January 27, 1995
> Whatever happened to global warming? The question was on many lips a year ago, when the northeastern United States suffered through its bitterest winter in years. Now an exceptionally warm winter has whipsawed perceptions about the world's climate once again. An answer has become apparent in annual climatic statistics in the last few days: *global warming, interrupted as a result of the mid-1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, has resumed -- just as many experts had predicted*.






> Volcano's Eruption in Philippines May Counteract Global Warming
> By WILLIAM K. STEVENS  June 30, 1991
> A global warming trend that began in the 1980's and has continued into 1991 could be offset over the next few years by atmospheric cooling caused by the eruption this month of the Mount Pinatubo volcano in the Philippines, scientists say. The major factor at work in the climatic effect is not the familiar dust cloud, but a chemical reaction. Volcanic *eruptions spew out vast quantities of sulfur dioxide gas that later combine with water to form tiny supercooled droplets.*




http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...37A25751C0A9609C8B63&scp=2&sq=krakatoa&st=nyt



> The 1883 eruption of Krakatoa in Indonesia ranks among the most powerful volcanic blasts in history. It spewed six cubic miles of ash and dirt into the air and disrupted the world's climate for several years........
> 
> If Krakatoa had never exploded, the researchers found, the ocean warming and rise in sea level that occurred in the 20th century because of human activity would have been worse. The only 20th-century eruption on a similar scale, the 1991 Mount Pinatubo explosion in the Philippines, had less of a lasting effect. Ocean temperatures recovered faster because by then the warming trend was in full swing.




The noise of 1883 Krakatoa was "distinctly heard" in Perth 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krakatoa


> The 1883 eruption ejected more than 25 cubic kilometres of rock, ash, and pumice,[2] and generated the loudest sound historically reported: *the cataclysmic explosion was distinctly heard as far away as Perth in Australia approx. 1,930 miles* (3,110 km), and the island of Rodrigues near Mauritius approx. 3,000 miles


----------



## 2020hindsight (24 May 2008)

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/01/an_artificial_volcano/

Paul Crutzen , the scientist responsible for giving the "artificial volcano" theory a new lease of life ....

"Crutzen says he doesn't think of "climate engineering" as a first-line response to global warming, *but if governments fail to enact the proper controls for greenhouse gas emissions, it might become a necessary emergency measure"*

".....And while the Bushies [Bush administration] have been hostile toward the idea of global warming, *certainly the idea of attacking a complicated problem with heavy artillery will appeal to them* so strongly that we might see some action soon."   :eek3:

Sorry Paul, that prediction of yours was 18 months ago - not much action by the Bush Administration yet. - maybe George (like Johnny H) is still trying to pronounce "Globular Warming".



> Bomb Earth's atmosphere with sulphur, researcher says
> Shock and awe campaign on global warming
> By Thomas C Greene in Washington DC -1st August 2006 09:36 GMT
> 
> ...


----------



## Aussiejeff (6 June 2008)

*'Climate change will beat us'*

I guess Mr Garnaut feels a tad pessimistic about the prospects of humanity keeping it's own "nest" clean in the coming years.....


_"*ECONOMIST Ross Garnaut thinks humanity will probably lose the fight against climate change.*

The architect of Australia's response to climate change says the issue is "too hard" and there is "just a chance" the world will face up to the problem before it's too late. 

Professor Garnaut issued the chilling prognosis in a speech in Canberra tonight._


Link to the full item here  http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23818810-5005961,00.html


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 June 2008)

Aussiejeff said:


> *'Climate change will beat us'*
> 
> I guess Mr Garnaut feels a tad pessimistic about the prospects of humanity keeping it's own "nest" clean in the coming years......



don't know if it will beat us ( although it has to be a strong possibility) , but ...
I reckon Garnaut is right when he says we should share the pain on the broadest base possible - that airline tickets should reflect the carbon cost,  cars likewise (price of petrol will go up bigtime), electricity likewise, business, personal ,  etc.  

also that things are heading worse faster than predicted 



> 60% reduction in carbon emissions by 2050 is an essential target - but we have to recognise the awful arithmetic that we will have to do significantly better than that




 Garnaut issues climate change wake-up

 GetUp! Demands Real Action on Petrol Prices


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 June 2008)

......... the definition of "effective" tackling of the world-wide climate change question in the USA is that it musn't "harm the USA economy"   

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/07/2267956.htm?section=justin



> Climate change bill blocked in US Senate
> Posted 1 hour 8 minutes ago
> 
> Legislation in the United States to combat global warming has suffered a serious setback after Republicans in the Senate blocked efforts to bring the bill for a final vote.
> ...




Not that we are charging ahead on the matter 
Here's a "hint" of where we might be heading...  

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/07/2267912.htm


> Swan calls for broad emissions trading scheme
> Posted 3 hours 3 minutes ago
> Updated 1 hour 12 minutes ago
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 June 2008)

I swear that politicians can be as thick as three planks sometimes...

http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,23826164-31037,00.html


> Petrol tax impact 'in doubt'By Julian Drape
> June 07, 2008 03:06pm
> 
> ...
> ...




1. and 3.  So according to the opposition, the govt (who are publicly discussing the pros and cons of the matter) are hopelessly confused,,,  but they reserve the right to be in a stance of "yet to take a formal position". 

2. How will a tax on petrol reduce petrol consumption and/or emissions?  ... doh... maybe , einstein, people will move to smaller cars 

4. backflips are the order of the day - depends if you're sincere I guess.


----------



## wayneL (7 June 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> I swear that politicians can be as thick as three planks sometimes...
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,23826164-31037,00.html
> 
> ...




Because it's a political issue, not an environmental issue.

It's about perceptions, revenue and management of supply, not CO2.

CO2 is the cover.

Let's face it, and I've pointed this out before. Either:

1/ AGW is real. We ain't doing anywhere near enough and we're stoofed.

2/ ABW is BS and a ruse.

What we're doing now is just total BS.

I will from now on largely ignore the issue, concentrate on general and effective environmentalism (saving the Blue Tit, reducing overall pollution etc).

The IPCC, and sticky fingered gu'mints can go to hell where they belong.


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 June 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> 2. How will a tax on petrol reduce petrol consumption and/or emissions?  ... doh... maybe , einstein, people will move to smaller cars



One of the key principles of a carbon tax or similar is that the fuels with the most carbon get taxed the most. So in order to achieve that, either petrol excise as it currently stands should be added to ALL fossil fuels (coal included) or completely removed from petrol. Then you have an even starting point from which to add the carbon tax.

To simply add the carbon tax without removing petrol excise would mean higher taxes on (cleaner) petroleum than on coal. That's the exact opposite of what you want if the aim is to reduce CO2 emissions.


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 June 2008)

wayneL said:


> I've pointed this out before. Either:
> 
> 1/ AGW is real. We ain't doing anywhere near enough and we're stoofed.
> 
> 2/ ABW is BS and a ruse.




1. Well I think I’ve pointed out before also that I find that totally confusing
a. if GW is real ( let alone AGW), then we could surely consider being proactive to advantage, and
b. rather than conclude “we’re stoofed”, and roll over – just let the “stoofing”: happen….

I’d prefer to at least listen to the theories of genuinely educated and educational people on this topic like Tim Flannery ( which makes him different from you and me btw)  – who at least can put forward an “emergency plan” using man made volcanoes.   Better than just saying we’re stoofed yes?

2. well there’s plenty of evidence of melting icecaps, yes?  so GW (at least) is not a ruse , yes? – or are you choosing to argue – again - that we’re not even warming?


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 June 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> One of the key principles of a carbon tax or similar is that the fuels with the most carbon get taxed the most. So in order to achieve that, either petrol excise as it currently stands should be added to ALL fossil fuels (coal included) or completely removed from petrol. Then you have an even starting point from which to add the carbon tax.
> 
> To simply add the carbon tax without removing petrol excise would mean higher taxes on (cleaner) petroleum than on coal. That's the exact opposite of what you want if the aim is to reduce CO2 emissions.




smurf, I guess we are talking classifications within classifications ( bit like the GST)

I mean , there's surely a case for the combined wisdom of carbon tax and imminent resource expiry,  - petrol (at the bowser) can be taxed on both counts.  

Or, I guess, think of it as user pays - since infrastructure spending on highways is gonna start eating into the NSW surplus for instance.  

PS I don't think there is much risk of petrol being made so (artificially) expensive (i.e. if the excise stays,  which as you might distort the "perfect" carbon tax model)   that coal-fired cars slip in under them as a cheaper alternative.


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 June 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> PS I don't think there is much risk of petrol being made so (artificially) expensive (i.e. if the excise stays,  which as you might distort the "perfect" carbon tax model)   that coal-fired cars slip in under them as a cheaper alternative.



But what you don't want to encourage is, say, the use of coal in industry, power generation etc at the expense of something cleaner (and oil is cleaner than coal). 

The market will handle the relative abundance of coal versus oil as far as firing boilers is concerned. If we're going to tax carbon then fair enough - tax carbon. But don't tax some carbon more than other carbon if the aim is to reduce the total emission. 

Taxing oil more would make sense if the issue is scarcity of resources. But in that case a higher tax on natural gas to discourage its use in boilers etc would also make sense - both are ultimately fairly limited resources compared to oil.

Somewhat off topic, but we're doing real well at this emissions cutting thing down here in Tas right now. A whole lot better than we'd like actually. Let's just say it's ALL going wrong...


----------



## Aussiejeff (10 June 2008)

Wow!

Oz to build up to 10,000 local Camry hybrids p.a. from 2010.

Big deal.

How much are these "Big Prius's" going to cost? $40,000+?

Why not cut the duty on the existing Prius's (they would then be under $35,000).

Won't these "Big Prius's" still need to run on $2.50+ petrol from 2010 (optimistic)?

Granted, it IS a better than nothing announcement, BUT only a tiny, tiny, miniscule bit.....

All too little, too late IMO.



AJ


----------



## Happy (10 June 2008)

Aussiejeff said:


> Wow!
> 
> Oz to build up to 10,000 local Camry hybrids p.a. from 2010.
> 
> ...




If Australia has only 5,000,000 cars it will take 500 years to replace them with hybrids.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 June 2008)

A classic example of what I don't like about the greens. We've got an outright crisis of national significance with energy in WA and all they're worried about is literally a bit of smoke from a power station that's quite some distance away from anyone. 

Somehow I don't think all those who stand to lose jobs in everything from mining to tourism will share this concern. Nor will the 10%+ of WA businesses, that's all businesses not just mining and energy, that stand to close their doors completely.

And in any event, locals managed quite well from the mid-1960's until last year with it - a couple of extra months isn't going to hurt.

Oh well, it beats the usual nonsense claims of an energy surplus I suppose. 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/13/2274017.htm


----------



## --B-- (19 June 2008)

meanwhile, climate change messiah and general bullsh!t artist, Al Gore seems to be not overly concerned about consuming massive amounts of energy.



> In the past year, Gore’s home burned through 213,210 kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity, enough to power 232 average American households for a month.
> ...
> Since taking steps to make his home more environmentally-friendly last June, Gore devours an average of 17,768 kWh per month –1,638 kWh more energy per month than before the renovations – at a cost of $16,533. By comparison, the average American household consumes 11,040 kWh in an entire year, according to the Energy Information Administration.



http://tennesseepolicy.org/main/article.php?article_id=764

hypocrite of the highest order...

one can only assume he knows the garbage he talks and the hysteria he seeks to generate is based largely on questionable science..


----------



## Naked shorts (19 June 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> A classic example of what I don't like about the greens. We've got an outright crisis of national significance with energy in WA and all they're worried about is literally a bit of smoke from a power station that's quite some distance away from anyone.




Its not only that, I hate how they try and show the cliche pictures of a nuclear power station that is emmiting loads of "danger greenhouse smoke" into the atmosphere. When in actual fact the "smoke" that is pouring out is just steam (yes water that has just been heated up).

perfect example of this kind of ignorance is here
http://www.liberatefreedom.com/archive/2007/02/25/nuclear-power-is-not-the-answer/


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 July 2008)

(naked shorts: no argument from me on your post btw)

Just heard this on the radio..... How good is this kid 
 from 1992 - David Suzuki's lill girl, Severn - then a 12 year old, now an adult of course. 



> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severn_Cullis-Suzuki
> Severn Cullis-Suzuki (born November 30, 1979 in Vancouver, Canada) is an environmental activist, speaker, television host and author. *Born to writer Tara Elizabeth Cullis and geneticist and environmental activist David Suzuki,* she has spoken around the world about environmental issues, urging listeners to define their values, act with the future in mind, and take individual responsibility.
> 
> Biography
> Cullis-Suzuki was born and raised in Vancouver, Canada.[1] At the age of nine, she founded the Environmental Children's Organization (ECO), a group of children dedicated to learning and teaching other kids about environmental issues.[2] In 1992, at the age of 12, Cullis-Suzuki raised money with members of ECO, to attend the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. Along with group members Michelle Quigg, Vanessa Suttie, and Morgan Geisler, Cullis-Suzuki presented environmental issues from a youth perspective at the summit, *where she was applauded for a speech to the delegates*




Herewith that speech .......
Since then she has graduated from Yale in ecology and evolutionary biology etc. 

 Severn Suzuki speaking at UN Earth Summit 1992

If you don't know how to fix it, then stop breaking it..



> Be the Change song/Severn Suzuki's message
> Fri, 28/09/2007 - 1:35am — Anja Light
> Be the Change
> By Pacha (age 6) and Anja Light, inspired by Severn Suzuki’s address to the UN Earth Summit in 1992 (see below for entire message).
> ...


----------



## wayneL (10 July 2008)




----------



## wayneL (11 July 2008)

Andrew Bolt highlights the deleterious effect of AGW doom-mongering and cuts through the GW crap:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23991257-25717,00.html

An excellent article full of uncommon sense.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 July 2008)

wayneL said:


> Andrew Bolt highlights the deleterious effect of AGW doom-mongering and cuts through the GW crap:
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23991257-25717,00.html
> 
> An excellent article full of uncommon sense.



Is he finally admitting it's getting warmer?

PS I'll try to read it on the weekend - but to be honest , I usually feel nauseous whenever I hear the man speak - 

definitely the rudest guest ever to go on Insiders as well.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 July 2008)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/11/2300650.htm
The Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has accused the Opposition of having a new position on an emissions trading scheme every 24 hours.



> Mr Rudd has concluded his overseas visit to the G8 in Japan and to Malaysia.
> 
> Climate change and discussions over reducing greenhouse gas emissions formed a significant part of the agenda, and on the Australia Network's Newshour program he has brought his focus back to the domestic political debate over the details of an emissions trading scheme.
> 
> ...


----------



## Aussiejeff (11 July 2008)

wayneL said:


> Andrew Bolt highlights the deleterious effect of AGW doom-mongering and cuts through the GW crap:
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23991257-25717,00.html
> 
> An excellent article full of uncommon sense.





Is it all crap though, Wayne? 

*NEW evidence has emerged that a large plate of floating ice shelf attached to Antarctica is breaking up, in a troubling sign of global warming, the European Space Agency (ESA) said today.* http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24002707-5005961,00.html

Last night on the ABC's QandA program, I thought Andrew Bolt did himself and his fellow "skeptics" a great disservice. His smirking outburst about how "nothing is happening in Antarctica" took the cake for me. He might be eating humble pie today after this latest SCIENTIFIC evidence..... 

The other point I'd like to make is that everyone seems to be hooked up on a GLOBAL WARMING theme. In fact, "climate change" that leads to massive polar melting (ie a gazillion new icebergs over time roaming towards the equatorial regions, to finally melt - that process now appears to be well and truly started) will likely mean coastal areas of northern Europe, Northern America, southern Australia and South America may well be plunged initially (in the short to medium term) into far more frigid local climates as local sea temperatures in these regions cool significantly with the sheer mass of melting sea ice. 

Of course, one benefit will be that Dick Smith would eventually be able to tow an iceberg into Sydney Harbour to ease the fresh water crisis.... LOL

Eventually, when all the ice has gone one would expect the global rate of temperature rise to increase rather rapidly. Glad I won't be physically around in 200 years time..... It will be enough for my remaining molecules and atoms to endure.....!! 


AJ


----------



## wayneL (11 July 2008)

Aussiejeff said:


> Is it all crap though, Wayne?
> 
> *NEW evidence has emerged that a large plate of floating ice shelf attached to Antarctica is breaking up, in a troubling sign of global warming, the European Space Agency (ESA) said today.* http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24002707-5005961,00.html
> 
> ...




Well if it isn't, the property bulls have dropped dropped a clanger about waterfront properties in the RE thread. Maybe we can pick up some 50k beachfront blocks after all 

On another front Anti AGW science is picking up some momentum over here... to the point that the pollies have had to modify their language from "when" to "if". Links as I run across them.


----------



## mayk (11 July 2008)

It is not serious. Here is my evidence 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-the-world's-biggest-polluter'.html?funny=not


----------



## --B-- (11 July 2008)

Aussiejeff said:


> Is it all crap though, Wayne?
> 
> *NEW evidence has emerged that a large plate of floating ice shelf attached to Antarctica is breaking up, in a troubling sign of global warming, the European Space Agency (ESA) said today.*




well thats interesting. is it equally amazing and scary that the antarctic ice shelf has been breaking up from time to time every single year?

heres a few snippets of info that (unfortunately?) dont feed the hypists hunger for more doom and gloom stories:



> Antarctica overall has cooled measurably during the last 35 years - despite a global average increase in air temperature of 0.06 degrees Celsius during the 20th century - making it unique among the Earth's continental landmasses, according to a paper published today in the online version of Nature.
> 
> Researchers with the National Science Foundation (NSF) Longterm Ecological Research (LTER) site in Antarctica's Dry Valleys - a perpetually snow-free, mountainous area adjacent to McMurdo Sound - argue in the paper that long-term data from weather stations across the continent, coupled with a separate set of measurements from the Dry Valleys, confirm each other and corroborate the continental cooling trend.




http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20020015034521data_trunc_sys.shtml

and 


> The high-profile collapse of some Antarctica’s ice shelves is likely the result of natural current fluctuations, not global warming, says a leading British expert on polar climates.
> 
> This surprising finding is supported by analysis of data from the European Space Agency’s ERS-1 satellite, according to Duncan Wingham, Professor of Climate Physics at University College London. The data, measuring changes in ice thickness across the Antarctic ice sheet using the polar orbiting satellite, show areas of growth from snowfall are as common as areas of decline.




http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/24/ice_shelf_collapse/

sorry to burst the bubble

Bolt is right, nothing is happening in antarctica.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 July 2008)

crikey.com ? - they seem to be pretty well respected yes?

I mean cut through the bolt nonsense etc yes?  



> http://www.crikey.com.au/Garnaut-Report/20080702-The-changing-state-of-the-climate-system.html
> 
> Revisiting the science on global warming: it ain't pretty
> 2 July 08
> ...




the graph shows area of arctic ice 1978 to 2007
the left map is Sept 2007,
the right map is Sept 2005  

PS the arctic is, was, always has been predicted by the IPCC to be in a more dire predicament than the antarctic


----------



## wayneL (11 July 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> crikey.com ? - they seem to be pretty well respected yes?
> 
> I mean cut through the bolt nonsense etc yes?
> 
> ...



I so detest manipulative data mining.

Let us view the ice pack image from *yesterday*, already past summer soltice, and compare them to the same date ten years ago.

Crikey loses any semblance of credibility and respect. 

One swallow does not a summer make 2020.


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 July 2008)

I'm seeing a very large increase in the number of people I meet who don't believe the whole thing. A year ago it was probably 99% acceptance, now I'd say that's down to maybe 50% and in freefall. 

Why? Simply because the whole thing is being pushed just _so_ hard right now which naturally makes most people suspicious. It's everywhere - you just can't live half a day without hearing about it somewhere.

Right or wrong, I think this issue is very close to burnout as far as the general public is concerned simply because there's so much hysteria surrounding it whilst so many claims of "proof of climate change" have turned to dust already. 

The truth? I really don't know. But as far as action is concerned, the more the issue is ramped in the near term, the more certain I am that we'll do nothing about it in the long term. That's largely because the much hyped actions needed to meet the short term demands for emissions cuts preclude holding them down in the long term. They don't scale.


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 July 2008)

wayneL said:


> I so detest manipulative data mining.
> 
> Let us view the ice pack image from *yesterday*, already past summer soltice, and compare them to the same date ten years ago.



That clearly shows an increase in ice cover to my eyes...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (11 July 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> That clearly shows an increase in ice cover to my eyes...




Any photos from 1660?

gg


----------



## wayneL (11 July 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Any photos from 1660?
> 
> gg




An excellent point gg.

The truth is we only have pictures going back to 1979... 29 years.

A statistically insignificant sample.

However if we had pictures from 1260, we might just be able to pick up the luxuriant green around the south coast of Greenland where the Vikings had farming communities and by logical extrapolation, a much smaller Arctic sea ice pack than today.


----------



## IFocus (11 July 2008)

> Farming will cease to exist in the South-West within 30 years as the region’s summers become unbearably hot and rainfall shrinks, according to the Weather Bureau and the CSIRO.




http://www.thewest.com.au/default.aspx?MenuID=146&ContentID=83282

Todays West Aus, for a Western Australian born in the wheat belt this is extreme.........


----------



## Temjin (11 July 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> I'm seeing a very large increase in the number of people I meet who don't believe the whole thing. A year ago it was probably 99% acceptance, now I'd say that's down to maybe 50% and in freefall.




Really?? I still see 98% acceptance, but I'm obviously amoung the 2%. I am not convinced with the whole GW thing, using the same argument that you just put forward. (the whole thing being pushed too hard)

I also take into account of human cognitive biases. Again, the recency bias comes into play. I just don't see how using a chart of 200 years would determine the future trend when Earth has a history of few hundred million years. Just because we see an ice breaking off the Arctic does not mean the whole polar cap will melt away in the next few years. 

And I am definitely not buying into the Al Gore's BS. Just look at his massive "green" fund and the amount of management fee he charges.


----------



## Aussiejeff (12 July 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> That clearly shows an increase in ice cover to my eyes...





Hmmm. You sure you took off your rose tinted glasses first, Smurf? LOL

I class myself as a modest performer when it comes to completing the "Spot The Difference" photos in her mags... 

So, here is a tagged copy of those same maps showing those areas that I can see have seen a significant REDUCTION in the concentration of sea ice since 1998 compared to the ONE area (denoted by green arrow at left) that appears to have gained.

There is also a massive decrease in the % concentration of an area near the pole itself - at about the 11 o'clock position - denoted by the change from purple/mauve (80-100%) to red (60-70%).

Sorry. But to MY eye these comparative pics show that the overall reduction in % of sea concentration since 1998 appears to be SIGNIFICANT - totally opposite to what you and Wayne are claiming! Oh, wait a minute... I just put on some rose tinted glasses. AMAZING - the whole map is now covered with sea ice!!! 

PS: The green arrow pointing to the void near the centre of the pixc was supposed to be yellow! My bad...



AJ


----------



## wayneL (13 July 2008)

Aussiejeff said:


> Hmmm. You sure you took off your rose tinted glasses first, Smurf? LOL
> 
> I class myself as a modest performer when it comes to completing the "Spot The Difference" photos in her mags...
> 
> ...



Jeff,

That's not really the point I was trying to make. In the sample period of observation, from 1979 till now, there is a downward trend in Arctic sea ice.

But what I hoped to illustrate, both implicitly and explicitly, are the following points.

1/ The data period is a statistically minuscule sample; not even long enough to get any sort of meaningful standard deviation. Variations in Arctic sea ice can have no statistical conclusions drawn from them at this stage.

2/ While we observe a downward trend in the Arctic, there is an upward trend in the Antarctic... both temperatures and sea ice. In isolation from each other, diametrically opposing conclusions can be drawn. Of course the AGW fear mongers only consider the situation that suits them, viz, the Arctic.

Intellectual fraud

3/ The IPCC fear mongers are guilty of disingenuous data mining. This is the most damning conclusions drawn from Crikey's images in comparison to those that I posted. The public will take Crikey's on face value without ever realizing that the true picture in entirety is totally different to that inferred.

We are being effectively lied to by strategic omission, irreconcilably and irreversibly damaging the public's trust in quangos such the IPCC who may ultimately have an important role in the future. But by the time the future arrives, their credibility will be completely and deservedly destroyed.

Bad show.


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 July 2008)

....
Here's what Penny Wong said this week - quoting the CSIRO .. note the last sentence.  of the second page

http://www.environment.gov.au/minister/wong/2008/pubs/tr20080707.pdf

" The CSIRO have reports out that project where climate change will take the reduction in water in the Murray Darling by 2050. We're currently tracking below the worst case scenario of mid-century.  

In other words, what we are experiencing now is worse that the scientists have predicted for the worst case climate change scenario for 2050... "


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 July 2008)

.....

Here's that excerpt referrd to in previous post..

Here's two recent articles since .. 
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/13/2302210.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/07/13/2302192.htm?section=justin

*Beyond Reasonable Drought *... 
http://www.abc.net.au/rural/content/2007/s1933481.htm


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 July 2008)

Beyond Reasonable Drought - A photographic exhibition that will tour Aus next year. 

http://www.abc.net.au/rural/content/2007/s1933481.htm

... "a few miles over they've got paddocks that would fatten a crow bar" 

http://hackwatch.blogspot.com/2004/09/is-david-uren-howards-man.html

"a grazier in the richest postcode (some years back) who claimed "you could fatten a crowbar" in the region, but didn't get any comments from Cullacabardee in Western Australia (the poorest postcode). "

That first photo taken at Weldon Hill Station, NT (I think that's right - hard to read)



> "You don't have to become all emotional and speak about it because here is a photograph that very sensitively and articulately communicates it".
> 
> Andrew Chapman agrees it's a constantly evolving process and the final exhibition wont be ready until next year.
> 
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 July 2008)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Any photos from 1660?
> 
> gg




...
no but here's the graphical projections that go back to 1660 (and some!)  Incidentally 1660 was a cold period.  

Firstly the "con" version put up in the show "the Great Global Warming Swindle" (it says - totally falsely - that "now" is less than the 1200's)   

next with the graph where "now" REALLY means "now" !!

and projected into the (disturbingly near) future.  

I can't understand why you blokes keep saying "check the money trail" to see if the talk of global warming ( by the likes of David Attenborough etc) is real or not ..

and you don't seem to realise that you yourselves are pawns of the oil industry (or if not - passing on their propaganda,  Ball and co, scientific harlots)   A couple of whom have proven track record - eg "smoking and lung cancer are unconnected" - yeah right - so, much were you paid for that "scientific opinion"? lol.

PS When you look at that graph - be aware that the IPCC plan is to TRY to limit the temp increase to only 2 deg rise - 
and we do that by reducing the CO2e emissions by 1.9% per annum - PROVIDED we start NOW.  
We wait 7 years - we have to reduce by about 2.5% per annum from memory.


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 July 2008)

Whiskers said:


> *Killer cornflakes*!
> 
> *Damn headlines!*
> 
> ...




this post way back (#944)


> Will 'killer cornflakes' be on our tables?
> Rosemary Desmond | May 13, 2008 - 3:25PM
> 
> Climate change could lead to "killer cornflakes" with the cereal carrying the most potent liver toxin ever recorded, an environmental health conference has been told.



Speaking of jesting - 
no doubt someone has already made this joke 

but does that mean there will be an outbreak of serial killers?


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 July 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> ...
> and you don't seem to realise that you yourselves are pawns of the oil industry (or if not - passing on their propaganda,  Ball and co, scientific harlots)   A couple of whom have proven track record - eg "smoking and lung cancer are unconnected" - yeah right - so, much were you paid for that "scientific opinion"?




As I said back there - in #735 I think...  



> Back to Singer and Ball - If you had a relative who died from smoking-related cancer AFTER Singer and Ball went in to bat so strongly (including financial gain) FOR the cigarette companies, *would you say it's fair to call them scientific who-res? Or would you use a term like murderers*?




Yet another question that your side of the discussion here seems reluctant to answer .    - maybe because it's blantantly obvious that it's at least manslaughter.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 July 2008)

Aussiejeff said:


> Hmmm. You sure you took off your rose tinted glasses first, Smurf? LOL
> 
> I class myself as a modest performer when it comes to completing the "Spot The Difference" photos in her mags...
> 
> ...



Am I looking at it right? I mean, only the white area is actual ice I assume? Or is the purple, red etc also ice?


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 July 2008)

[/U]







2020hindsight said:


> ...
> no but here's the graphical projections that go back to 1660 (and some!)  Incidentally 1660 was a cold period.
> 
> Firstly the "con" version put up in the show "the Great Global Warming Swindle" (it says - totally falsely - that "now" is less than the 1200's)
> ...



I have, both through work and as an individual, been involved on numerous occasions with emergencies of various kinds. Floods, fires, explosions, gas leaks, road accidents, workplace accidents, blackouts, structural collapse - I've been involved in the response to all of those.

And if there's one thing about emergency response it's this. You always,  always, use whatever solution can be most quicky implemented. It doesn't have to be perfect and you don't worry about the side effects. You pick the quickest option from the choices (if there are any) that are good enough to do the job.

Environmentalists are increasingly talking of a climate "emergency". Fair enough, that may well be the case.

But if it is indeed an emergency then it warrants urgent action to do something about it. That by definition means the response will not be perfect and it will have side effects.

Now here's the crunch. What would be the quickest way to cut Australia's (for example) emissions? You'd have no choice other than to move everything possible to electricity (unless you can directly use solar for heat etc). And you'd have no choice but to build nuclear, hydro and wind to generate that power (nuclear being dominant).

I challenge anyone to come up with a plan that actually works (without collapsing the economy) that doesn't involve using more electricity and getting that electricity from nuclear, hydro and wind. You can do it in 50 years for sure, but if that's adequate then it's not a real emergency.

But environmentalists oppose all of these. We all know they don't like dams and nuclear but they aren't real keen on wind either - unless it's on a small scale and thus doesn't solve the problem. Instead we hear calls to "go solar" and do all sorts of other things which, whilst they might work eventually, are too little, too late if they are the response to an actual emergency.

Hence I don't believe that the majority of environmentalists (or the general public) believes we have or are headed for an emergency with the climate. A long term problem requiring a long term solution maybe - that's what their actions are pushing for. But few if any are talking about action in the context of an emergency here and now. 

That being so, the calls to cut x% within 10 or 20 years are ridiculous - nobody is willing to support the measures needed to actually do it.


----------



## explod (13 July 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> [/U]
> 
> 
> That being so, the calls to cut x% within 10 or 20 years are ridiculous - nobody is willing to support the measures needed to actually do it.




Smurf, having no power invested in me to do so I hereby declare this as the best thread of the Month.

And there is no more that I can add.

Cheers explod


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 July 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> 1. .... You pick the quickest option from the choices (if there are any) that are good enough to do the job.
> 
> 2. Environmentalists are increasingly talking of a climate "emergency". Fair enough, that may well be the case.  ..then it warrants urgent action
> 
> ...




1. .... "Do what you can, now, with what you've got" Winston Churchill. (something like that anyway)

2.   "urgent action?"  - yep.  Heck we could discuss that emergency fallback position of Prof Tim Flannery's again if you wish (sulphur, artificial volcanoes etc) 

3.   ... "no choice but to build nuclear, hydro" - true but see also 2

4. ... They (IPCC) are intentionally keeping their goals realistic - I mean 1.9% per year reduction in CO2e isn't or SHOULD NOT be unachievable surely.  That will keep the max rise to 2deg C. 

......But even then, a percentage of the public winge as if countless lives of countless types of critters (particularly the quality of life of their grandchildren) didn't depend upon it.  

5. ... we hear calls to "go solar" ... too little, too late. Probably true - I used to import solar cells in the 80's.  Was hard to sell ;   too much - too early 

6. .. "few if any are talking about action"   - so what are you saying smurf? - as a well educated person?  - do nothing? 

7.  "x% within 10 or 20 years" - nobody is willing to support the measures needed to actually do it"  -    the big majority have come round - and the rest are coming round or don't matter - slowly but surely, mate. 

The following graphs for either 
a) starting now, and  (1.9% per annum reduction in CO2e)
b) starting in 2017 (2.5% per annum reduction in CO2e)


----------



## explod (13 July 2008)

explod said:


> Smurf, having no power invested in me to do so I hereby declare this as the best thread of the Month.
> 
> And there is no more that I can add.
> 
> Cheers explod




Sorry smurf, got so carried away with my lack of statutry power and the content of your thread that got confused between thread and post.

A great post, and you too 2020

cheers explod


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 July 2008)

smurf and eplod, I suspect you'll both agree with this one 

Progress was all right. Only it went on too long. 
James Thurber


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 July 2008)

My underlying point in all my posts on this subject comes down to this really:

Question 1. 

Is the problem real or not? Not the warming as such, but the consequences thereof. 

Question 2. 

Is it necessary to make a significant reduction in emissions compared to business as usual (that is, growth in emissions) within the next 30 years?

Question 3.

Is the scale of the necessary reduction such that emissions would, in 30 years time, need to be reduced below present levels? (As opposed to simply slowing the rate of growth).

Answer.

If the answer to the above 3 questions is all "yes" then from a practical perspective there's really only one course of action available. And that is to (1) shift away from the direct use of fossil fuels wherever possible and (2) no new fossil fuel power stations of any type to be built.

Point 1 implies a large increase in total electricity consumption. It would vary by region but I'm talking 100% increase or something like that not 5 or 10%. And that's in addition to any increase that would normally have occurred. 

Point 2 requires a massive building program for non-fossil power generation that needs to start today. It must thus be based on technolgies that are available, proven and viable today. That limits it to nuclear baseload with a wind and hydro system providing the rest at the national level (the Qld, NSW, ACT, Vic, Tas, SA interconnected system).

This means building nuclear power stations in Australia. It means building a lot more wind farms, many near the coast and on hill tops. And it means building more hydro-electric dams, though not to the point of damming every last creek and flooding genuine wilderness areas.

If we had 20 or 30 years before ending emissions growth then there's all sorts of things we could do without needing nuclear or wind power. 

But if it's urgent then nuclear, hydro and wind it is. Sometime in the future, we can swap nuclear with geothermal and wind with solar thermal for new plant construction. So 50 years time, and it will take that long before we're completely finished with fossil fuel power generation, we'd have a mix of geothermal and nuclear baseload plus a wind, solar and hydro system taking care of the rest. Nuclear and wind would be declining, geothermal and solar taking their place. 

Technically it's very doable if properly planned and the economics would likely be tolerable if the rest of the world is likewise acting to reduce emissions.

But sadly, I will guarantee you that mainstream environmentalists will fight every last piece of such a plan. They'll fight wind farms anywhere they can be seen - which is just about everywhere they can be built. They'll fight dams even if the area being flooded is of no real value to anyone. And they'll fight the transmission lines needed to connect it all up no matter where they're put. And no need to mention that they won't support nuclear.

Hence we're stuck with ongoing emissions growth and, at best, a few % of total energy from renewables. That outcome works only if we've got 50 or so years before any real action is needed - many disagree with that but hardly anyone supports the measures needed to do something about it. Hence I don't believe any mainstream politician or environmentalists is in any way serious about this being an urgent problem.

And so that's my point. Either we need to take drastic action or we don't. And if we need to take drastic action then we're stuck with nuclear reactors, flooded valleys and not being able to get around without seeing wind turbines as the consequence. If we had 30 years to start then we can likely avoid doing those things, but we've got no choice if it's urgent.

No easy options unfortunately - that's the inherent problem of energy. Personally, I'm hoping we can wait then go geothermal / solar thermal / hydro with a bit of wind. But that view assumes the problem isn't urgent - many are starting to argue otherwise.


----------



## wayneL (13 July 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> And so that's my point. Either we need to take drastic action or we don't. And if we need to take drastic action then we're stuck with nuclear reactors, flooded valleys and not being able to get around without seeing wind turbines as the consequence. If we had 30 years to start then we can likely avoid doing those things, but we've got no choice if it's urgent.
> 
> No easy options unfortunately - that's the inherent problem of energy.



On the money - completely.

If we take the example set by the actions of members of IPCC and the AGW lobby, it would seem we do nothing apart from some cosmetic feel good measures around the edges.

They are showing us that hedonistic, energy gluttonous lifestyles are OK. eg Al Bore's house and IPCC meetings at luxury South Pacific resorts.

If they do nothing, Joe Sixpack certainly ain't going to do it or pay for it. A point I am sorry to repeat _ad nauseum._


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 July 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> Q1.  Is the problem real or not? Not the warming as such, but the consequences thereof.
> 
> Q2. Is it necessary to make a significant reduction in emissions compared to business as usual (that is, growth in emissions) within the next 30 years?
> 
> ...




Q1. yep, real
Q2. yep, significant reduction within the next 30 years essential
Q3. yep, shinbone yes!

4. "above 3 questions is all "yes" - ..no new fossil fuel power stations of any type to be built." 
Well I would agree 100%, but check out the Yanks and the Chinese putting up coal fired plants at a rate of knots 
PS don't forget the Flannery solution 
The confidence people are claiming for carbon capture is ... ,mmm ...... I remain to be convinced  - but let's give em the benefit of the doubt (I guess ) 

5, 6, and 7.  ..let's go nuclear - and forget the hydro  - too much flaming methane  

8. "And so that's my point. Either we need to take drastic action or we don't."
well, we're having enough problem convincing a few around here that the polar icecaps are melting,  - lol.  - lol? I mean groan.  

IPCC very reasonably say that 1.9% per annum is ok!
I'm backing them. : 2twocents

PS There is ABSOLUTELY no doubt in my mind that Australia will be more than 50% nuclear by 2100 - i.e. our grandkids ( freed of all disease, and cured from all known causes of death,  lol) may live to see it : 2twocents


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 July 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> 5, 6, and 7.  ..let's go nuclear - and forget the hydro  - too much flaming methane



With present technology either we have significant hydro in the grid or we have significant fossil fuels. It doesn't work with reasonable efficiency to be 100% nuclear and intermittent sources (wind etc). Even 100% coal is problematic - it's always more efficient to add some hydro.

In a technical sense this is simply because of the incredibly high flexibility of hydro plant in operation. It's easy to bring a turbine online and to 100% load real fast. And just as easy to shut it down again. Try doing that with a nuclear reactor, sending the output all over the place, and you're just asking for trouble.

It's quite practical to build a hydro scheme with minimal methane emissions. Just remove the vegetation before the dam is closed. 

As for the specifics, I'm refering to largely pumped storage schemes with relatively small storages. Big turbines run for short periods. Some natural flow as well, we need the primary energy, but that's not the main objective for future hydro development. This won't make a lot of methane if done properly. 

We're not going to run the whole country on hydro that's for sure. But it's a vital component of any move to a non-fossil grid due to the flexibility and storage it can provide.


----------



## 2020hindsight (13 July 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> We're not going to run the whole country on hydro that's for sure. But it's a vital component of any move to a non-fossil grid due to the flexibility and storage it can provide.



thanks smurf,
ok - have it your way - some hydro as well ...

damned if I know where, lol - but somewhere , somehow , .. maybe. 
and/or wind I guess. (as you suggested - but my subconscious discounted because of start up cost - sheesh - not that I've done any sums whatsoever)

probably because I've spent too much time sailing - doldrums - becalmed etc


----------



## Julia (13 July 2008)

wayneL said:


> O
> If they do nothing, Joe Sixpack certainly ain't going to do it or pay for it. A point I am sorry to repeat _ad nauseum._



Don't be sorry.  It bears repeating.  I will never remove that television image of Al Gore's house blazing with light in every window, plus dozens of lights outside, from my mind.  Such utter hypocrisy.  No matter, I guess it has made him pretty rich.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 July 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> thanks smurf,
> ok - have it your way - some hydro as well ...
> 
> damned if I know where, lol - but somewhere , somehow , .. maybe.
> ...



Lots of good hydro sites. I'm aware of about 13,000 MW that could be developed in Qld, NSW, Vic, SA (with NSW having the largest share). That's mainly pumped storage which is what's needed to fit with a wind / nuclear / geothermal / solar system.

Wind is surprisingly economic by the way, especially as part of an integrated wind / hydro system. Expect to hear another big wind farm (about 140 MW) announced as going ahead by Roaring 40's pretty soon...


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 July 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> 1 . Lots of good hydro sites.
> 
> 2. ... another big wind farm (about 140 MW) announced as going ahead by Roaring 40's pretty soon...




2.  Like I say, ok for the roaring 40's, not so good for the flukey trade winds and/or tropics.  

1. viable dams ?– 
you’d have to give me some examples to convince me. (PS but I hear you about the energy storage bit)
Only "decent" (indecent? sheesh) dam I’m aware of is Traveston (Mary R , 150km north of Bris, not far from Kevin Rudd’s home town of Nambour) – Here’s an aerial picture I posted – you can see how flat the land is by the meandering of the river - takes out a stack of beautiful prime agricultural land  - kill the farmers' livelihoods, so that the people of Brisbane can water their roses  - instead of getting some tanks – THINK TANKS as the slogan goes - average depth about 1.5m (approx)  - probably run 3 or 4 light bulbs 

PS Since that has apparently been planned without sufficient weight for / consideration of power generation, is it fair to say that someone in govt isn't listening? - which was your initial point lol!  (I believe there were better alternatives up in the hills further - but that probably would have drowned  the local State Representatives farm )

traveston dam :-
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=244765&highlight=traveston#post244765

PS A poem I wrote about Traveston :-



> Traveston Dam was an issue put to Queenslanders at the last election. - one person / farmer / townsperson = one vote . (them's the rules in a democracy)
> 
> TRAVESTON DAM
> 
> ...




PS :- some of your previous suggestions, carbon tax/penalty on airline tickets – encourage trains etc – cut back on fossil fuels obviously – all thought provoking, and (almost) all of which I agree with
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=238848&highlight=traveston#post238848


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 July 2008)

PS Another slogan there "Don't Murray the Mary"


----------



## Aussiejeff (14 July 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> Am I looking at it right? I mean, only the white area is actual ice I assume? Or is the purple, red etc also ice?




The colored/purple/red areas show the concentrations (0-100%) of sea ice.

... and here's a link to the ice shelf about to let go in the Antarctic....

http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM2U5THKHF_index_1.html#subhead1


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 July 2008)

Aussiejeff said:


> The colored/purple/red areas show the concentrations (0-100%) of sea ice.
> 
> ... and here's a link to the ice shelf about to let go in the Antarctic....
> 
> http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEM2U5THKHF_index_1.html#subhead1



AJ - thanx - I think lol. - bludy terrifying in fact.  

undeniable evidence  - except around here  

On the news tonight as well. 

TO SEE OR NOT TO SEE ? THAT IS THE QUESTION   


PS This article originally posted almost 2 years ago, possibly updated since (?) either way - pretty sobering .. 
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn9903



> Climate Change - Learn more in our continually updated special report.
> 
> Climate change is with us. A decade ago, it was conjecture. Now the future is unfolding before our eyes. Canada's Inuit see it in disappearing Arctic ice and permafrost. The shantytown dwellers of Latin America and Southern Asia see it in lethal storms and floods. Europeans see it in disappearing glaciers, forest fires and fatal heat waves.
> 
> ...


----------



## wayneL (14 July 2008)

You see 2020, the problem around here is that a lot of people actually have intelligence, and look to various sources of information and come to a balanced conclusion.

After WW2, most folks are wise to the Goebbels style propaganda and will eventually see through it, as they do with the now discredited "An Inconvenient Truth".

The truth is that the AGW protagonists have been caught out lieing through their teeth, both explicitly with manipulated data and implicitly by omission of all the substantial evidence to the contrary.

The only recourse to discredited imbeciles such as yourself, is to caricaturize others as screwy with pathetic with puerile statements that are more common in kindergarten than a in a forum used by intelligent adults. This is the epitome of propaganda.

It is done on a higher level by threatening to jail any of those who disagree.

It is a disgrace and you are a disgrace for bringing it here.

If you are adult enough, which I seriously doubt, we can carry on the debate based on evidence and without misrepresentation of others position. If not, and you continue to drag the debate to the intellectual level of a two year old, I can see this thread being closed and/or other action.

Now please do us all a favour and lift you EQ above single figures... PLEASE!

Jokes, satire and sarcasm is fine up to a point, but there is a level past where it is not debate, but just childish... and you are well past that.


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 July 2008)

wayneL said:


> The truth is that the AGW protagonists have been caught out lieing .....




ahh back to AGW instead of just GW - 


PS Wayne - you're all over the place - admit it


----------



## Whiskers (14 July 2008)

wayneL said:


> Jokes, satire and sarcasm is fine up to a point, but there is a level past where it is not debate, but just childish... and you are well past that.




Child-like I think is the proper term. Childish is derogatory to children. 

Couldn't help myself with that one. 


Btw, you two are still going hammer and tongs at each other on this. :


----------



## wayneL (14 July 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> ahh back to AGW instead of just GW -
> 
> 
> PS Wayne - you're all over the place - admit it




Re your EQ

I rest my case.


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 July 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> 1. viable dams ?–
> you’d have to give me some examples to convince me. (PS but I hear you about the energy storage bit)



Here's a few (all figures are approximate only):

Qld. Herbert (500 MW natural flow). Burdekin Falls (500 MW natural flow, 500 MW pumped), Mt Byron (1000 MW pumped). 

NSW. Budd's Mare (186 MW pumped with some natural flows), Apsley (814 MW pumped with significant natural flows too), Wandilla (1000 MW pumped), Boundary (1000 MW pumped), Yonkers (1000 MW pumped), Windy Creek (1000 MW pumped), McKeahnies (1000 MW pumped), Prussian Flat (1000 MW pumped).

Vic. Ada River (1000 MW pumped), Trawool (1000 MW pumped), Wilhelmina (1000 MW pumped), Mitchell (20 MW natural flow only).

SA. Warren (400 MW pumped / natural).

WA. Serpentine (400 MW mostly pumped).

I'll leave Tasmania out since I'm not about to start _that_ debate here. Yes there's "another Snowy" and more that could be built. But it would only happen in a radically different political climate to the present and it doesn't form part of my thinking on how a national geothermal / nuclear / wind / solar / hydro system could work. But if we really do get desperate for anything that works then I think we'll see the debate revisited.

NT has a few schemes that could be built. They're generally very high water volume, very low head situations that don't really produce a lot of power. They could be significant locally though.

I walked home today so I've done something to help the CO2 (well, a little bit). Only trouble is, I've had rather a lot of trouble getting the fire going this evening (it's going now though) so a bit of warming would have been nice. It's been working fine lately but wasn't keen on going tonight - probably something to do with the wood being wet.


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 July 2008)

thanks Smurf - gee some serious alteration of the landscape there. 
Are you saying that nuclear without hydro backup/storage is unviable? 

I mean I'm resigned to the fact that the grandkids will have nuclear.  Are they also definitely gonna have these dams you mention?


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 July 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> thanks Smurf - gee some serious alteration of the landscape there.
> Are you saying that nuclear without hydro backup/storage is unviable?
> 
> I mean I'm resigned to the fact that the grandkids will have nuclear.  Are they also definitely gonna have these dams you mention?



Nuclear is certainly viable without hydro. But running a 100% nuclear grid would be incredibly inefficient at best.

The problem relates to demand variation. If you have 13,000 MW at the daily peak and 7500 MW at the daily minimum (rough figures for NSW) then you'll have a lot of trouble doing that all with nuclear.

Nuclear plants run nicely at constant load. Having 13,000 MW running like that would be inefficient technically and financially - lots of wasted heat and a fortune spent building rarely used peaking plant.

Much cheaper and more efficient to run the nuclear plants at a nice steady load and let hydro (or fossil fuel) take care of the peaks. That's why even France isn't going for 100% nuclear. 

Same reason why, contrary to popular belief, Victoria never had 100% from brown coal - technically it's doable but too inefficient and expensive. Hence the hydro plants built shortly after the first brown coal plant. And the ongoing use of first black coal and oil and these days gas to handle the peaks.

I could also point out that if all this becomes obsolete in 100 years time then the hydro schemes are the most easily restorable (even Bob Brown of all people acknowledges this). You won't get the coal back in the ground. You won't get the CO2 out of the air. And you won't make the nuclear waste disappear. But drain a dam, plant some trees and nature will do a pretty good job in a single human lifespan. 

In my opinion the reason hydro (and forests) attract so much attention is because the damage can be seen. You can easily see what has been lost and what the impact is. In contrast, the impact of fossil fuels and nuclear is hidden from most even though it's far harder to reverse. Out of sight, out of mind. Hence lots of fuss about dams and trees that could be put back in a century or two at most but we suck the oil wells dry forever with hardly a word being said about it.

We deny a generation or two access to an unspoilt area of land and the result is massive protest.

We deny EVERY coming generation access to a critical natural resource, oil, and not a word is said. Even threatening a permanent climate disaster attracts less outrage than borrowing an area of land for a century or two. Hmm...


----------



## Buddy (16 July 2008)

Hey Smurf, a slighly different angle to the use of nuclear power............
What about fusion? Yes, the technology hasn't caught up with the science yet but I expect it to happen within the next xxx years or so. Theoretically fusion reactors should be capable of significant turndown so they should be capable of handling both base load and peak. That would eliminate the need for peak load storage dams. Do you have any thoughts on that? 

And then there's dark matter energy...................endless energy forever!  And whilst I'm on far out there stuff, how about turning the entire planet into an electric generator and harness the energy from the electro magnetic interaction between the Earth and the Sun.  That should do the trick!


----------



## Pat (16 July 2008)

Hey i'm pretty fresh to this thread.

Has anyone seen the "new age" solar cells? Making inks and plastics that act like solar cells. They don't need direct light to make power and they're apparently 10 times more efficient than what we use now. The technology can be mass produced, and in the testing stage its cheaper than a conventional solar cell. So it can only get cheaper can't it?


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 July 2008)

Pat said:


> Hey i'm pretty fresh to this thread.
> 
> Has anyone seen the "new age" solar cells? Making inks and plastics that act like solar cells. They don't need direct light to make power and they're apparently 10 times more efficient than what we use now. The technology can be mass produced, and in the testing stage its cheaper than a conventional solar cell. So it can only get cheaper can't it?






2020hindsight said:


> here's another great joke ...
> lost opportunities - thanks Johnny
> http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2008/s2301635.htm




Pat - yep - That was what I was referring to back on the other thread.  
Lost opportunities - We were actually "onto it" - but without some encouragement from the Govt, it slipped through our fingers .. 

PS If I'm not mistaken, prior to this someone said we required an area of 50km x 50km of solar cells to power Australia - ok - a heap of ifs and buts ...  (2500 km^2)

But with 10 times the efficiency, presumably we now only need 16 km x 16km.   (250 km^2)
(Gotta feeling smurf won't agree lol) .  



> Calls for urgent solar industry funding	PRINT FRIENDLY
> EMAIL STORY
> 
> PM - Friday, 11 July , 2008  18:25:00
> ...






> BRONWYN HERBERT: *Scientists at the University of Queensland have also been toying with mixtures of dyes to concentrate solar rays*. But they say it's still a decade away from commercialisation.
> 
> *The American breakthrough has sparked debate over the state of Australia's own solar industry.*
> 
> PHILIP JENNINGS: *To see a breakthrough in design like this, so simple and so obvious once you've seen it, shows that there's enormous opportunities here for research and development *to develop products that are going to be cost-effective and will give us a clean energy future if the Government's prepared to invest in them.


----------



## Pat (16 July 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Lost opportunities - We were actually "onto it" - but without some encouragement from the Govt, it slipped through our fingers ..



Just like the electric car eh? 
I'd say it's more than govt support. It's big business that holds this enviro stuff back. 

Imagine a car that needs no petrol and can be fueled at home via an extention cord. I don't think the oil companies would let that happen. And they didn't. The technology is here, it has here in the late 80's.

As said before, money is the key driver here, not the environment. So f@#king sad.


----------



## dj_420 (16 July 2008)

Hey guys

I have not posted on this thread yet, but would like to add some points to stir the pot a little. 

All this attention has been brought about by apparent global warming. But if we begin to look at these issues on a geological time scale then it appears quite different. In the past the earth used to be a lot hotter, and it is only in recent times (in a geological sense) that the earth has begun to cool down.

We are technically still in an ice age, this is because there is still substantial ice on the poles. Currently we are in an interglacial period which by definition is a warmer period within an ice age. 

If you look at the nuts and bolts of it, it is identified that glacial periods (colder periods of an ice age) are characterized by colder drier climates, and interglacial are characterized by warmer wetter climates. Could it not be simple fluctuations in the earth’s climate that is continuing today as it has for the past 4.5 billion years? We would probably see just as much media hype if the earth was coming out of an interglacial and heading for a glacial period, whereby sea levels fall and the continents dry up as more and more freshwater is locked away in ice sheets.

The media loves to sensationalize things and although sea levels have been predicted to rise by up to 10 meters, if we look a little further back in history at the Cretaceous period (144 – 65 million years ago) sea levels were 170 meters higher than today. 

My point is that the time on earth that humans have been around (300 thousand years) is merely a blip on the geologic time scale. During the time of humans we have seen three glacial periods and two interglacial, of which the temperature was _warmer_ than it is today. I think that even if humans do have some impact on the earths climate it has run its course in cycles for many millions of years before this and to try and sustain ourselves in a temperature range or sea level of what we “perceive” to be habitable is crazy. That is like trying to stop earthquakes and volcanoes from happening.

Thought I might add this for a balanced wholistic approach. Just a little food for thought.


----------



## Pat (16 July 2008)

Agree DJ,
However humans have altered this world in so little time. Just like evolution, mother nature being in control may just be a thing of the past.


----------



## dj_420 (16 July 2008)

Pat said:


> Agree DJ,
> However humans have altered this world in so little time. Just like evolution, mother nature being in control may just be a thing of the past.




It depends on what scale you look at things, but we have had an affect on planet earth regarding use of fossil fuels, land clearing etc.

One other point I will make is that a warmer wetter climate will lead to higher species diversity, one only has to compare the Amazon to Antarctica to make the comparison.

Effects of this could mean increased land for agriculture, increase in freshwater, increased crop yields, and an overall increase in plant life and plant diversity could lead to an increase in carbon sinks meaning plants are able to take up higher amounts of carbon dioxide.

There are many unknowns, but I the point I am making is that the earth has many cycles, to what extent humans have a permanent effect on these cycles is yet to be seen.


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 July 2008)

dj_420 said:


> 1. Hey guys... some points to stir the pot a little.
> 
> 2. ...look at these issues on a geological time scale then it appears quite different.
> 
> ...



dj 
Summary ;
1. stir indeed m8 lol

2. 145 million years ago to 65 million years ago - pretty difficult to compare Cretaceous and now ,  
True there was (slightly) higher temp (5 deg) and (much) higher sea levels –  but this needs qualification. (average ocean depth was damn all) 

3. sensationalise ? 
lol - you saying we might go back to the Cretaceous ? - lol - any comparison is pretty "strange" mate.  eg Antarctica Australia and Africa were still joined lol. :eek3:

Also there was a massive amount of luxuriant flora – and no parking lots, nor roads  
Only a few peaks of (now) Scotland were then land.   Average depth of the ocean was much less. - absolutely no relevance to todays ocean floor or ocean shape. 

4.  *The temperature then was only (about) 5 degrees hotter – about the same as IPCC scenario A1F1* 

5. balanced? - lol - no way we're going back to the dinosaurs ! - eg Johnny Howard  

http://www.bbm.me.uk/portsdown/PH_130_Envmnt.htm





> The world during the Cretaceous looked very different. Its continental arrangement was different, as was the 'flora and fauna' that survived in a very different climate.
> The following discussion covers:
> •	The Appearance of the World
> •	The High Sea Level
> ...






> The High Sea Level
> Perhaps the most significant factor of the Cretaceous world was the very high sea levels. The global sea level was at its highest ever during the Cretaceous (though was very high in the preceding Jurassic, too), peaking during the Late Cretaceous around [86]Ma ago. Various estimates have suggested height increases (above today's level) of many 100's metres, and although it is now believed that many of these estimates are excessive, it is certain that the eustatic (global) sea level was well over 200m higher during the Cretaceous than it is today.
> During the peak of the high sea levels, only isolated areas of the Highlands of Scotland, and possibly Wales, in the United Kingdom, were land. The rest of our island was under the warm, shallow, tropical sea that flooded much of the Eurasian continent.
> 
> ...






> Climate and the High Temperature
> The higher temperature of the Cretaceous has already been referred to. Estimates suggest that at the beginning of the Cretaceous, the Global Mean Surface Temperature (GMST) was around 20 °C (about 5 ° hotter than today's value of 15 °C), and was about the same at the period's end - but peaked to a high of 25 °C in the Upper Cretaceous.
> 
> *These high temperatures were due to the much higher level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere at the time* - which has been suggested as being 4 times as much as is in our air today.
> The Cretaceous was thus an intense "Greenhouse world", and we have a long way to go before reaching those conditions.


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 July 2008)

PS The end of the Cretaceous spelt the chance for early man to evolve - 

PS at least early man was intelligent enough not to stuff up the climate 

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=201409&highlight=dinosaur#post201409

PS how lucky is man that there was an asteroid hit 65 million years ago 



> this heavenly asteroid hit
> then the dinosaur decline occurred
> left the ones up the front in the ****
> then the back of the pack were in-terred
> ...




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


----------



## Pat (17 July 2008)

I understand the complete stupidity brought about by this GW debate.
For example: http://www.news.com.au/business/money/story/0,25479,24033075-5017313,00.htmlIt's an excuse for politians to give more of there crap.


----------



## dj_420 (17 July 2008)

Hahaha

All I am saying is that we maybe witnessing some small fluctuations in cycles on earth rather than an impending catastrophe the pollies would have us believe. And everytime they do a "study" on climate change they will compare statistics from the last 50 000 years, the cycles last a lot longer than that.

A good article against global warming here, might be warned though, gets pretty technical in the climate modelling and lingo.

http://www.aps.org/units/fps/newsletters/200807/monckton.cfm

For those who cant be bothered reading or trying to dechipher the article it states that the IPCC have some fundamental flaws in the climate models they have presented, which leads to an exagerated statistics on future climate change. The IPCC presentations have overstatedthe ffects of feedback systems in the earths climate, feedback systems can be negative and positive. 

A positive feedback system is one which effects amplify the original impact, like the ice albedo effect, more ice means higher reflectivity (albedo) which means lower regional temperatures which means move ice and so on. 

A negative feedback system is one which effects reduce the original impact, a good example here is a thermostat in a house, increase in temperature cause the thermostat to switch the heater off and lets it cool down again.

So anyway, the article states that the IPCC have overstated or over estimated the feedback effects that global warming could cause.


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 July 2008)

DJ said:
			
		

> All I am saying is that we maybe witnessing some small fluctuations in cycles on earth rather than an impending catastrophe the pollies would have us believe. And everytime they do a "study" on climate change they will compare statistics from the last 50 000 years, the cycles last a lot longer than that.




small fluctuations ??? 
I beg to differ mate.


----------



## jtb (17 July 2008)

dj_420 said:


> Hey guys
> 
> I have not posted on this thread yet, but would like to add some points to stir the pot a little.
> 
> ...




Well said DJ,

If we slow our small animal minds to geological timelines than I find facts that Lake Titicaca (*4000m* or so above present sea level) was once a salt water sea (now mostly leached away by ice melt).

One wonders as how salt managed to find its way to that great height yet evidence exists that it may be the result of precipitation (of the oceans) after the impact that prompted mans early memory of the great deluge (40 days and 40 nights-big wooden ark etc).

Thats something to ponder.

I find it amusing (and I'm certainly no skeptic)  that receding glaciers and snowlines regularly expose evidence of grasses, human remains, civilisation etc etc that clearly exhibit a more temperate time in even our (homo-sapien) short time on earth. Ho Hum
Yet the media shows a clip of a glacier calving and we all ponder immediate and extended self flagellation (sorry had to slip in a catholic reference)

As you mentioned we are overdue for another ice age, so realistically we need to put as much CO2 into the atmosphere as we can (to delay it). However the planets feedback loops will eventually take us back to equilibrium regardless so best start practicing humility and Zen imo

2020, 

DJ's not talking about how hot it was last week bro, before the impact that blasted the moon out of the mass of the earth and gave us our astounding angle of rotation and pleasant level of rpm. The planet was an oxygen free boiling mass of not very niceness.
Mankind is hung up on recent memory- Adam and Eve weren't remembered for wearing thermal undies and full kapok were they?


----------



## wayneL (18 July 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> small fluctuations ???
> I beg to differ mate.



You will have to beg, because that graph is totally ludicrous... pulled straight out of someones @rse - laughable.


----------



## Sean K (18 July 2008)

wayneL said:


> You will have to beg, because that graph is totally ludicrous... pulled straight out of someones @rse - laughable.



There was an Ice Age in the 1600s? Gee didn't know that.


----------



## wayneL (18 July 2008)

dj_420 said:


> Hahaha
> 
> All I am saying is that we maybe witnessing some small fluctuations in cycles on earth rather than an impending catastrophe the pollies would have us believe. And everytime they do a "study" on climate change they will compare statistics from the last 50 000 years, the cycles last a lot longer than that.
> 
> ...




What this article has done:

At best - Consigned AGW to the rubbish bin.

At worst - Has completely destroyed AGW as a *theory* and placed it firmly back into the realms of *hypothesis*, where it always belonged anyway.

One of the tenets of theory is that results must be able to be predicted, based on the theory. This document shows that the IPCC and the AGW hypothesis are completely incapable of predicting anything at all.

The absolutely scandal of the whole deal is that AGW is regarded as *fact*. 

Real dumb!!



> Some reasons why the IPCC’s estimates may be excessive and unsafe are explained.* More importantly, the conclusion is that, perhaps, there is no “climate crisis”*, and that *currently-fashionable efforts by governments to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions are pointless, may be ill-conceived, and could even be harmful.*




True science shines through the dross in the end.


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 July 2008)

wayneL said:


> You will have to beg, because that graph is totally ludicrous... pulled straight out of someones @rse - laughable.




Actually it was the collective work of a lot of scientists working their buts off ..

Hey - if that graph is news to you , then you didn't even watch that Channel 4 TV doco you posted - started a thread rather - called the Great Global Warming Swindle..   let alone the ABC review of it 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

PS The alarming line - the black graph - was "pulled out of the UK Met bureau's ass" (using the terminology you so pleasantly use to argue your case).

black 1856-2004): Instrumental data was jointly compiled by the w:Climatic Research Unit and the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre. Global Annual Average data set TaveGL2v [2] was used.


----------



## wayneL (18 July 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Actually it was the collective work of a lot of scientists working their buts off ..
> 
> Hey - if that graph is news to you , then you didn't even watch that Channel 4 TV doco you posted - started a thread rather - called the Great Global Warming Swindle..   let alone the ABC review of it
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MWP_and_LIA_in_IPCC_reports



Read my next post and the rectal origin of that extrapolation you posted will be obvious.


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 July 2008)

wayneL said:


> Read my next post and the rectal origin of that extrapolation you posted will be obvious.




Read this then - the extrapoltaion was hypothetical
called a "what if"


----------



## Pat (18 July 2008)

jtb said:


> Yet the media shows a clip of a glacier calving and we all ponder immediate and extended self flagellation (sorry had to slip in a catholic reference)



What do you ponder jtb, when you see the ice melting? Any sense of loss? Or is it all ridiculous because you read it in the paper and the media put a negative GW spin on it?

FWIW it's kinda sad to see peeps writing off CC (possibly because they are self righteous lounge room asswholes) with no regard to what we may be losing. Ignorant?

Perhaps it’s futile to think we have a chance of changing things. But heaven forbid we think positive and make change for the better. 
There are more important reasons to change our ways, CC and GW just add to the argument.... "Why not change for the better???"

Or do some here think the human race is efficient enough?


----------



## --B-- (18 July 2008)

Pat said:


> FWIW it's kinda sad to see peeps writing off CC (possibly because they are self righteous lounge room asswholes) with no regard to what we may be losing. Ignorant?




scare tactics like this are what much of the AGW debate is based on. lets stick to facts.

heres an interesting article from someone who has experience in climate science:



> David Evans | _July 18, 2008_
> 
> 
> *I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.*
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 July 2008)

Pat said:


> What do you ponder jtb, when you see the ice melting? Any sense of loss? Or is it all ridiculous because you read it in the paper and the media put a negative GW spin on it?
> 
> FWIW it's kinda sad to see peeps writing off CC (possibly because they are self righteous lounge room asswholes) with no regard to what we may be losing. Ignorant?




Pat , lol

dj says that we should put things into perspective by going back to the days when Antartica Australia and Africa were joined ...

jtb wants (I think) to compare when the moon was flung off 4 billion years ago..   

Actually I'm damned if I see the relevance in either/any of those comparisons.  

Nothing to worry about folks - we've all been here before    Ignore the fact that the earth climate is changing at never before dreamed of rates ( short of asteroids and other catastrophies) 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicxulub_Crater  = dinosaur extinction

http://www.sunysb.edu/research/milestones1/page15/page15.html


> the first dating of the age of the Moon - at about 4 billion years - based on the rock samples brought back by the Apollo 11 astronauts, the first humans to walk on the Moon, in July, 1969


----------



## Pat (18 July 2008)

--B-- said:


> scare tactics like this are what much of the AGW debate is based on. lets stick to facts.
> 
> heres an interesting article from someone who has experience in climate science:



 There just aren't enough facts B, only 200yrs worth. My point is, if we can change for the better, and live in a sustainable equlibrium with the environment. Then we should wrok 'harder' towards this.

I certainly agree that the sky is not falling, but the FACT is ice is melting. The world is changing... Facinating


----------



## --B-- (18 July 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Nothing to worry about folks - we've all been here before    Ignore the fact that the earth climate is changing at never before dreamed of rates ( short of asteroids and other catastrophies)




really?? source? thats not one of those 'say it and everyone will believe it' type things many agw hypists rely on is it?

in any case, the fact that the climate changes is nothing new. thats what the climate does. its the "A" of the agw that is highly debatable. (although the GW part is quite shakey too)


----------



## Pat (18 July 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Nothing to worry about folks - we've all been here before    Ignore the fact that the earth climate is changing at never before dreamed of rates ( short of asteroids and other catastrophies)



At least nature will survive, thanks Cousteau. These debates reinforce the fact society needs look at things from the future. A hard concept to grasp for most.



--B-- said:


> really?? source? thats not one of those 'say it and everyone will believe it' type things many agw hypists rely on is it?
> 
> in any case, the fact that the climate changes is nothing new. thats what the climate does. its the "A" of the agw that is highly debatable. (although the GW part is quite shakey too)



So you don't think we contribute? We can make acid fall from the sky! And fly to the moon! But we can't possibly effect the earth's climate. FFS!


----------



## --B-- (18 July 2008)

Pat said:


> So you don't think we contribute? We can make acid fall from the sky! And fly to the moon! But we can't possibly effect the earth's climate. FFS!




did you read my article above pat?

heres a snippet for you:

_There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming._


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 July 2008)

--B-- said:


> really?? source? thats not one of those 'say it and everyone will believe it' type things many agw hypists rely on is it?



-B- 
 look at the graph in post #1050
see that sharp incline in the graph 
that's put out by the UK Met Bureau.
happy now?


----------



## Pat (18 July 2008)

--B-- said:


> did you read my article above pat?
> 
> heres a snippet for you:
> 
> _There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming._



So do you think we should do something about it, Or just let the sickness run it's course? possibly kill it off with a fever?


----------



## --B-- (18 July 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> -B-
> look at the graph in post #1050
> see that sharp incline in the graph
> that's put out by the UK Met Bureau.
> happy now?




my apologies 2020. im pleased to see you do base that claim on a graph yet dispute your interpretation that this is proof of the climate "changing at never before dreamed of rates"


----------



## spooly74 (18 July 2008)

Pat said:


> So do you think we should do something about it, Or just let the sickness run it's course?




This is what it boils down to Pat!

The problem is though, that the IPCC at the end of the day simply have a model.

All scientific models have restricted applicability, they should be thought of as representations of reality, not reality itself!

It should be the goal of the IPCC to find flaws in their model, this will highlight the areas where we need a better understanding...and I don`t think this can be denied when dealing with such a chaotic system.
They have made predictions ...lets see where the break down.

As for sickness running it`s course..... Whats happened to this system already can`t be changed.
As dj pointed out the earth is in feedback mode where every input produces an output which in turn becomes an input to the system again.
Inevitably (whenever that may be) this will lead to a phase change....our 2 nearest neighbours are testament to this.


----------



## AlterEgo (18 July 2008)

I find all this discussion of whether we think climate change is real or not, or whether humans are contributing to it to not, quite ridiculous. There are thousands of scientists all over the world that have devoted their lives to investigating this issue. If they believe there is compelling evidence (which they do) of human contribution to climate change, then who are we to argue with them?! They are the experts, not us! It’s like arguing with your doctor “No, I don’t believe you that I have cancer, so therefore I refuse to have any treatment for it”. Even if you don’t believe you have cancer (or climate change is real), you should still take the treatment for it anyway, because the consequences of not treating it will be quite catastrophic if it turns out you were wrong. Is that a risk you’d be willing to take? I think not!


----------



## Pat (18 July 2008)

AlterEgo said:


> I find all this discussion of whether we think climate change is real or not, or whether humans are contributing to it to not, quite ridiculous. There are thousands of scientists all over the world that have devoted their lives to investigating this issue. If they believe there is compelling evidence (which they do) of human contribution to climate change, then who are we to argue with them?! They are the experts, not us! It’s like arguing with your doctor “No, I don’t believe you that I have cancer, so therefore I refuse to have any treatment for it”. Even if you don’t believe you have cancer (or climate change is real), you should still take the treatment for it anyway, because the consequences of not treating it will be quite catastrophic if it turns out you were wrong. Is that a risk you’d be willing to take? I think not!



So true, and my point too. But arguing/debating massages my brain 

B, You article is sound, and makes good point. But science is dynamic in itself, constantly changing. I can't sit still thinking "well now they say its not us....few...relief". 

I suppose I wish the GW guys are correct, and could prove it was us humans doing the warming. 
Not so I would be right, but so the world would be wrong.


----------



## AlterEgo (18 July 2008)

Pat said:


> But arguing/debating massages my brain




LOL


----------



## spooly74 (18 July 2008)

AlterEgo said:


> There are thousands of scientists all over the world that have devoted their lives to investigating this issue. If they believe there is compelling evidence (which they do) of human contribution to climate change, then who are we to argue with them?! They are the experts, not us!




And what about the scientists that say that say there is no man made contribution to GW. Scientists say there is no compelling evidence!

ignore them?

Again, no scientific model is 'the truth'.


----------



## Pat (18 July 2008)

spooly74 said:


> And what about the scientists that say that say there is no man made contribution to GW. Scientists say there is no compelling evidence!
> 
> ignore them?
> 
> Again, no scientific model is 'the truth'.



Maybe it depends on who sponsored their research? 
Just being pessimistic.


----------



## AlterEgo (18 July 2008)

spooly74 said:


> And what about the scientists that say that say there is no man made contribution to GW. Scientists say there is no compelling evidence!
> 
> ignore them?
> 
> Again, no scientific model is 'the truth'.




Well I understand that the scientists that say there is no compelling evidence are not 'climate scientists', but work in other related fields. ie. they are not the most qualified people to know.

So the 0.1% of scientists that say there is no credible evidence are more credible than the other 99.9%??

As I stated above, are you willing to bet your life, or the lives of future generations (possibly your kids) on all those climate scientists being wrong? We don't need to be *100%* certain that the scientists are right to act on it, even if there is only a *possibility *that they are right we should still act, because the consequences will be extremely severe if it later turns out that they were right all along and we didn't do anything at the time, when we had a chance that we could have done  something about it.


----------



## spooly74 (18 July 2008)

AlterEgo said:


> Well I understand that the scientists that say there is no compelling evidence are not 'climate scientists', but work in other related fields. ie. they are not the most qualified people to know.
> 
> So the 0.1% of scientists that say there is no credible evidence are more credible than the other 99.9%??




Where on earth did you pull that stat from? .....oh wait, I`ve got a model :


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 July 2008)

spooly74 said:


> Where on earth did you pull that stat from? .....oh wait, I`ve got a model :




spooly
are you not ignoring the rest of what alterego posted ..

I mean  - do you accept that the polar ice caps are melting? - and at an alarming rate? or not ?  



> As I stated above, are you willing to bet your life, or the lives of future generations (possibly your kids) on all those climate scientists being wrong? We don't need to be 100% certain that the scientists are right to act on it, even if there is only a possibility that they are right we should still act, because the consequences will be extremely severe if it later turns out that they were right all along and we didn't do anything at the time, when we had a chance that we could have done something about it.




or do you agree with wayne that even global warming ( forget the anthropogenic bit)  is a nonsense.   eg when asked "is it ok to joke about global warming?" , wayne says ...



wayneL said:


> Considering it has about as much validity at the flying spagetti monster, it would be wrong to not make fun of it.
> 
> On the other hand, taking it seriously is resulting in psychosis, as detailed on the other thread.


----------



## wayneL (18 July 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> spooly
> are you not ignoring the rest of what alterego posted ..
> 
> I mean  - do you accept that the polar ice caps are melting? - and at an alarming rate? or not ?
> ...



Whoa there Mr BSer. I've just about had enough of your misrepresentations.

I do not deny the dynamism of climate. Some areas are warming, some are cooling. My point is that it is probably not warming or cooling or doing anything on a macro scale other than by natural factors. 

North Sea ice IS smaller than it was in 1979, but not anywhere even remotely close to what the AGW alarmists would have people believe. I have demonstrated that... not that it isn't less, but that it's a lot less "less" than AGW hypocrites represent.

POLAR BEARS AREN'T DROWNING as the Al Bore imbecile foisted on a gullible and concerned public.

On the other hand, Southern ocean ice is increasing, and many areas are having their coldest periods for decades.

Climate will change. The Aztecs (or Mayans or one of those Central American Tribes) lost their civilization due to Climate change. But they didn't drive cars; nor did anyone else in the 12th century. 

Humans CAN affect micro-climates via deforestation, heat sinks effects of cities and so on... and I am personally active in trying to counter those influences.

However on the macro scale, it has not been demosnstrated that humans have been responsible for any worldwide climate change. At best it is a hypothesis, at worst it is a mass complicity in fraud, or perhaps mass delusion and most certainly a huge gravy train for the pro-AGW lobby.

It is now time to cease your intellectual dishonesty of misrepresenting... no, downright lieing about the position of others that disagree with the fraud. 

Cut it out 2020, fair warning.


----------



## Julia (18 July 2008)

AlterEgo said:


> Well I understand that the scientists that say there is no compelling evidence are not 'climate scientists', but work in other related fields. ie. they are not the most qualified people to know.



Source for this claim?



> So the 0.1% of scientists that say there is no credible evidence are more credible than the other 99.9%??



Again, please state the source for these percentages and provide back up link to prove your point.


----------



## Julia (18 July 2008)

wayneL said:


> Whoa there Mr BSer. I've just about had enough of your misrepresentations.
> 
> 
> It is now time to cease your intellectual dishonesty of misrepresenting... no, downright lieing about the position of others that disagree with the fraud.
> ...



Wayne, I agree completely with all you have said.
But , to be fair, 2020 is not alone in this misrepresentation.
I have also asked Alter Ego to justify his claims.
Fair enough?


----------



## wayneL (18 July 2008)

Julia said:


> Wayne, I agree completely with all you have said.
> But , to be fair, 2020 is not alone in this misrepresentation.
> I have also asked Alter Ego to justify his claims.
> Fair enough?



Exactly!

If one must use hyperbole, it should be obviously so, rather than representing it as fact or statistic.


----------



## Pat (18 July 2008)

Have not yet seen any evidence the south is gaining any ice. 

Infact aren't some of Antartica's ice sheets breaking/broken up?

I have heard a theory that ice on main land Antartica may grow if the climate warms, due to moisture, snow etc.

More propaganda for the melting sea ice.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2007/06/vanishing-sea-ice/sea-ice-text

Before and after, this looks like some rapid melting to me. On the other hand, I'd say it would take just as long to create them. Still, there going. Thems facts hey partner?


----------



## Doris (18 July 2008)

wayneL said:


> I do not deny the dynamism of climate. Some areas are warming, some are cooling. My point is that it is probably not warming or cooling or doing anything on a macro scale other than by natural factors.
> 
> On the other hand, Southern ocean ice is increasing, and many areas are having their coldest periods for decades.




I read, a few days ago, that 80% of babies of one specie of penguin in the Antarctic have died by freezing to death.  It does not *usually* rain there as it's too cold.  But now these babies become wet, when their parents go to catch food, as they have not yet grown their water resistant feathers. Of course this freezes... 'They' suggested that in ten years this penguin will be extinct.



> Climate will change. The Aztecs (or Mayans or one of those Central American Tribes) lost their civilization due to Climate change. But they didn't drive cars; nor did anyone else in the 12th century.




Not the Mayans... no-one has come up with a reason to prove why they were decimated... a century or two before Columbus.  20 million became several hundred thousand.  Hmm.

Btw... it's fascinating to see the Mayans at Costa Maya. They have never inter-bred and are still very tiny with very high cheekbones.  And the original Africans from the slave trade days are also pure breeds.  Incredible!



> Humans CAN affect micro-climates via deforestation, heat sinks effects of cities and so on... and I am personally active in trying to counter those influences.




I was taught in high school geography (long time ago) that if one third of your body was burnt you could not live and this was related to forests.  If one third of the trees on Earth were removed the world could not survive.


----------



## Pat (18 July 2008)

Doris said:


> I read, a few days ago, that 80% of babies of one specie of penguin in the Antarctic have died by freezing to death.  It does not *usually* rain there as it's too cold.  But now these babies become wet, when their parents go to catch food, as they have not yet grown their water resistant feathers. Of course this freezes... 'They' suggested that in ten years this penguin will be extinct.



You see thats just the media taking things out of context.


----------



## wayneL (18 July 2008)

Pat said:


> Have not yet seen any evidence the South is gaining any ice.
> 
> Infact aren't some of Antartica's ice sheets breaking/broken up?
> 
> ...




Pat,

Unfortunately the argument has become an adversarial one. That is, it is about winning the argument instead of finding the truth. The IPCC will only present evidence to support their case, ignoring all else that doesn't.

This is observable and predictable in a greater way than the AGW hypothesis itself.

You haven't heard about Antarctica getting colder or southern ocean ice increasing because *they don't want to tell you*.

First result from goooooooogle http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/antarctic_020822.html

Of course there is the obligatory spin to fit in with IPCC dogma, but the fact is, many regions are getting colder.

As I detailed in my previous post; climate is dynamic, it changes. But the causes on the macro level are natural, not anthropogenic.


----------



## wayneL (18 July 2008)

Doris said:


> Not the Mayans... no-one has come up with a reason to prove why they were decimated... a century or two before Columbus.  20 million became several hundred thousand.  Hmm.



Doris,

Read it and weep. http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/student/fitch1/abrupt_e.html


----------



## Pat (18 July 2008)

wayneL said:


> You haven't heard about Antarctica getting colder or southern ocean ice increasing because *they don't want to tell you*.



 Who doesn't? 
Why so much emphasis on it getting hotter? Because there is little evidence of cooling?

In all continents I have read of evidence of tempratures increasing. Europe, The America's, Australia, Asia and Africa. Deserts getting bigger, drought, melting ice etc. If the opposite can be seen, wouldn't scientists be jumping all over it?

IMO, It's been getting warmer for the last 10000 yrs or so. I've read the sea level has been alot higher. It is safe to say that the sea level would fluctuate from up there to down there.
To me, we're on an uptrend (trends do change). Human impact or not.

Why is it wrong to say GW is a reason to stop burning fossil fuels, polluting the planet???


----------



## wayneL (18 July 2008)

Doris said:


> I read, a few days ago, that 80% of babies of one specie of penguin in the Antarctic have died by freezing to death.  It does not *usually* rain there as it's too cold.  But now these babies become wet, when their parents go to catch food, as they have not yet grown their water resistant feathers. Of course this freezes... 'They' suggested that in ten years this penguin will be extinct.




A strange and sad event to be sure. But this shows the delusional leaps of logic that people are making.

* One weather event does not prove or disprove anything. As we know from NASA, the Antarctic getting colder. Hell, it snowed in Melbourne in November one year not too long ago... meant nothing.

* There may have been incidences of precisely the same thing in the last 10,000 years that humans haven't been on the continent to observe.

* It may never happen again, or at least infrequently enough to have no long term effect

Yet "they", in a most unscientific leap of faith, will have the penguins extinct in ten years in order to sensationalize the story.

That's intellectual dishonesty of the most disgraceful variety and I thought you as a teacher would have seen right through it. Very bad show.


----------



## wayneL (18 July 2008)

Pat said:


> Why is it wrong to say GW is a reason to stop burning fossil fuels, polluting the planet???



stop burning fossil fuels ==>> Good idea

GW ==>> wrong reason and a red herring

polluting the planet ==>> right reason

Wile everyone freaks about co2, they ignore all the other pollutants that are wrecking the place.

E.g. going back to penguins. Populations are in decline due to a bunch of other reasons nothing to do with climate and everything to do with pollution and habitat destruction. Yet these factors are ignored.


----------



## Pat (18 July 2008)

wayneL said:


> stop burning fossil fuels ==>> Good idea
> 
> GW ==>> wrong reason and a red herring
> 
> ...



They've always been ignored. But GW opens up the opportunity for some real change. It has created more awareness of the surrounding environment for many. The GW debate has been a positive stimulus. I do not foresee any problems in pursuing the reduction of CO2 and other pollutants.
The "awareness" can only bring more positive change for the better of the environment.


----------



## jtb (18 July 2008)

Pat said:


> What do you ponder jtb, when you see the ice melting? Any sense of loss?
> 
> FWIW it's kinda sad to see peeps writing off CC (possibly because they are self righteous lounge room asswholes) with no regard to what we may be losing. Ignorant?
> 
> ...




Ouch Pat,

I don’t think I’ve ever been called a ‘self righteous lounge room asswhole’ before.

FWIW the case for GW/CC is a considerable portion of my tertiary studies and will result in a BSc (Sustainable Energy Management) .
My interest in geology many years ago morphed into a specific focus on astrobiology , not in small part  due to the rise in awareness of CC.

I also made the point that I am not a sceptic.

My original post was directed to DJ in support of his feedback statements as alot of people are unaware (uninterested) in this phenomenon.

CO2 is regulated by the silicate-carbonate geochemical cycle and prior to the rise of life (pre-Cambrian) atmospheric CO2 levels were 20 times what they are today. It was actually the explosion of life (due to warming) that pulled it down to where we are today. 
Very little carbon is actually carried in the atmosphere with a large portion banked in the ocean and the majority in rocks.
As atmospheric levels rise (get out of balance) warming exposes more rock/earth which leads to more weathering (and the production of carbonates) and also the propagation of plants which in turn capture more carbon which then reduces the atmospheric level.

My point regarding glaciers calving was bemoaning the sound byte driven misinformation that our society now unfortunately considers education.

Perhaps my mistake was taking the macro instead of the micro view.

As I’m sure you know many glaciers are also expanding around the world and yet the deep ice core drilling at Vostok station (Russia) shows clearly that we are in an unnaturally extended warm period (hence the rise of civilisation) and the ices historical record shows that a drop of 8 deg C is overdue when considering  the previous four interglacial events (approx ever 100,000yrs).

*Hence the earth has lost control of its CO2 balance all on its own , 4 times in the last 400,000 years.* 

Which coincidently displays as a parabolic rise in temperature each time (Very similar to 2020’s chart) followed by an extended period of ice building. 

Our return of captured carbon to the atmosphere is obviously outside of the natural system however its not outside of natural cycles. 

Considering the city of Seattle (USA) was under 1600m of ice only 15 thousand years ago, I simply find it incomprehensible that humans are so ego-centric that they forget the planet is a dynamic, extreme ‘wondrous machine’.
I imagine the mammoth hunters were damn glad to see the glaciers recede.

As to a sense of loss, after spending many years living remotely (in a swag) amidst our wonderful outback my sense of loss, although at first magnified (Alpine forests are now the the goldfields) was  tempered by scales of time and the magnitude of the landscape. 
What magnificent things our previous generations have already lost or destroyed.

I wonder what our continent and fauna would have looked like prior to being put to the torch by the indigenous tribes?

Glory in the present  

I can’t agree more with your statement ‘there are more important reasons to change our way’s’- the impact of man on biodiversity is a far greater threat than any other imo.

That we should all do our best to lighten our load goes without saying.

Sorry 2020, you seem to have missed my point entirely.

If we compress the entire history of the planet into a 12 hour period then the recorded history of mankind would inhabit a colossal 1/10th of a second.

To fret over a 3 degree rise/fall in a couple of hundred years (and don’t get me started on quality of data) is a bit like taking your car to a mechanic with a blown diff and telling him to have a look at the headlights.

Anyway, me and my ignorance are off to the loungeroom

Cheers 

J


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (18 July 2008)

Perhaps a realisation of "We don't know but lets try to do better anyway" would be good for all. 

I agree with Waynel that we haven't been here long enough and 10,000 years could be a short time for a celestial change which may just be the cause of what we have labeled global warming.

Should Earth orbit the sun in a perfect circle each time? What if it is off by a few hundred thousand kms? Colder hotter perhaps.


----------



## wayneL (18 July 2008)

jtb

Fantastic post. Thanks for your erudite and balanced view.



Pat said:


> They've always been ignored. But GW opens up the opportunity for some real change. It has created more awareness of the surrounding environment for many. The GW debate has been a positive stimulus. I do not foresee any problems in pursuing the reduction of CO2 and other pollutants.
> The "awareness" can only bring more positive change for the better of the environment.



Pat,

I don't think it does.

E.g the British gu'mint. Shoves AGW down our throats at every opportunity and spends mot of its time dreaming up new environmental taxes.

Yet, it is building a new runway at Heathrow and adding a few lanes to the M25, both to facilitate additional carbon reliant travel. Eh???

Meanwhile, it is up to non-AGW focused folk to campaign against general pollution, litter and the preposterous level of supermarket packaging that clogs up our bins and landfill.

I think the AGW agenda detracts from real sustainability issues. It is anecdotal I realize, but it's what I observe


----------



## Doris (18 July 2008)

Pat said:


> You see thats just the media taking things out of context.




How so?  Do a google on 'penguin chicks dying+antarctica'
I got 9440 sites!



wayneL said:


> You haven't heard about Antarctica getting colder or southern ocean ice increasing because *they don't want to tell you*.






> Tens of thousands of newly-born penguins are freezing to death as Antarctica is lashed by freak rain storms.
> 
> Scientists believe the numbers of Adelie penguins may have fallen by as much as 80 per cent – and, if the downpours continue, the species will be extinct within ten years.
> 
> ...




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...-penguins-frozen-death-freak-rain-storms.html


----------



## Pat (18 July 2008)

jtb said:


> Ouch Pat,
> 
> I don’t think I’ve ever been called a ‘self righteous lounge room asswhole’ before.



 Sorry mate, you haven't yet. That was not directed at you (It wouldn't make sense for me to say that). Nor any other poster. 
I suppose I've heard enough from people who don't care. To me GW is an opportunity for change. It's frustrating, very frustrating that some ignore the fact we should be living with the earth. 
Yet to read your post, a few more beers and its bed time. Till tomorrow :bier:


----------



## jtb (19 July 2008)

Pat said:


> Sorry mate,
> Yet to read your post, a few more beers and its bed time. Till tomorrow :bier:




No worries mate, sounds like a plan


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 July 2008)

wayneL said:


> It is now time to cease your intellectual dishonesty of misrepresenting... no, downright lieing about the position of others that disagree with the fraud.
> 
> Cut it out 2020, fair warning.



so I post something put out by the UK met bureau
a graph in answer to your claims about rectal origins etc 
and you claim it's fraud.   


or are you saying you didn't post this  in answer to "is it ok to jest about global warming?"..

Hey if you want to rephrase that, clarify what you really meant, we'll understand. 



> Considering it has about as much validity at the flying spagetti monster, it would be wrong to not make fun of it.
> 
> On the other hand, taking it seriously is resulting in psychosis, as detailed on the other thread.


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 July 2008)

Doris said:


> I read, a few days ago, that 80% of babies of one specie of penguin in the Antarctic have died by freezing to death.  It does not *usually* rain there as it's too cold.  But now these babies become wet, when their parents go to catch food, as they have not yet grown their water resistant feathers. Of course this freezes... 'They' suggested that in ten years this penguin will be extinct.




exactly - but the deniers will twist that to say that the penguins are freezing to death, so let's warm things up a bit 

Wayne says that the polar bears aren't drowning - well, true - the two that made it to Iceland (oops)recently didn't (like, swam 300km of ocean to do so.    

Trouble is that they can't catch seals in open water.  It's not that they are drowning because they can't swim per se.  That is a plain misrepresentation.  (sure they tire after a while - see the video).    It's that they like to catch seals at their breathe holes, and when the ice doesn't form , or only forms for a shorter winter than normal,  then sure - they die.  

Here's where the NRDC took Bush to court on the matter.... 

 On Thin Ice: Polar Bears and Global Warming

NRDC's lawsuit forced the Bush administration to start facing facts about global warming.

Have a look at this starving female 
 Starving Polar Bear

PS a few more island hops, they'll be able to swim to Scotland 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...and-15-years-shot-dead-police-sightseers.html


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 July 2008)

spooly74 said:


> This is what it boils down to Pat!
> 
> The problem is though, that the IPCC at the end of the day simply have a model.
> 
> ...



spooly , you say that "It should be the goal of the IPCC to find flaws in their model".
Sure they should constantly check and improve their model.  

But hey, if their model is telling them something pretty alarming - then are you suggesting that , just because it's alarming, they should ignore it?

I 100% disagree with you if that is what you are saying - from scientific, or philosophical take on it - or just life experiences, but I won't go into detail.   Sufficient to say that sometimes the messenger is right.


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 July 2008)

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23879662-23109,00.html



> Second polar bear spotted in Iceland
> June 17, 2008 06:29pm
> 
> A POLAR bear has been sighted in northern Iceland having apparently made a journey of several hundred kilometres to get there, the second bear to make the trip in two weeks.
> ...






			
				wayneL said:
			
		

> POLAR BEARS AREN'T DROWNING as the Al Bore imbecile foisted on a gullible and concerned public.




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...and-15-years-shot-dead-police-sightseers.html



> The receeding ice at the North Pole is jeopardising their future existence.  As the ice breaks up, so their hunting and mating grounds go with it.
> A spokesman for PolarWorld, a German group dedicated to the preservation of the polar regions and the creatures which inhabit it, called the bear’s death ...
> 
> *'an avoidable tragedy...another great day for mankind'.*


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 July 2008)

someone said (cynically), if you want the truth, then follow the money ...  how about Exxon funding $23 million during 1998 - 2006 .  

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=The+Denial+Machine&search=Search

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hINSwCueXY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHzPzLS7Ppc&feature=related


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 July 2008)

Julia said:


> But , to be fair, 2020 is not alone in this misrepresentation.



lol,  asteism alert !

asteism - "Genteel irony; a polite and ingenious manner of deriding another"



> A backhanded compliment ..asteism..  an insult disguised as a compliment. It is generally used to belittle or condescend, or often one uses a backhanded compliment when one wants to insult someone in a subtle way.
> 
> An example of a backhanded compliment would be to tell a woman "I like your dress very much. It does wonders for your figure." This statement would seem on the surface to compliment the woman's choice in clothing, and perhaps even her figure, but closer examination reveals its true meaning: that the woman's figure is unattractive and needs improvement from clothing. This statement is not a compliment to the woman, but to the garment's ability to slenderize.






> Backhanded compliments are not always intentional. The speaker may intend to pay a compliment, but in so doing accidentally reveal uncomplimentary feelings. For example, on the August 22, 2007 episode of The Daily Show, guest Barack Obama responded to the question of whether there were any Republicans he could agree with by saying "I think some of these folks are decent people," to which Jon Stewart responded with "Worst backhanded compliment ever."
> or ...
> "I want to be just like you when I get old";


----------



## Julia (19 July 2008)

2020, my post was a direct response to Wayne's comment about your repeated misrepresentation and simply pointed out that you were not the only one doing this.

Very straightforward, really.

No subtle messages implied.

Interesting new word, however.


----------



## Julia (19 July 2008)

jtb:  thanks for your informed and interesting post.   Really appreciated.


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 July 2008)

Julia said:


> Wayne, I believe your facetious comment above in actual fact represents the philosophy of much of the population.
> And then there's another large group of people, myself included, who just don't know what to believe.  I lack the scientific background to be able to properly evaluate all the screeds of urgings by both sides, and find that my innate suspicion of all things hysterical (which is what a lot of it comes across as to me) just turns me off.
> 
> Like many other things, e.g. fluoride, I am reminded of how powerless I am as an individual to have any say anyway, despite what I might believe.
> ...




Julia
I enjoyed this post of yours...  

However, As for my alleged repeated misrepresentations, examples please  

I mean, Wayne says the graph is nonsense - I post the link to UK Met Bureau - he goes quiet .
Now 
 should I wait around for an apology?  - or go for a run   

(PS see ya)


----------



## Temjin (19 July 2008)

So much emotion here!  

Let's be realistic here fellows. I may be a skeptic of the whole GW b---****, but LET'S assume once that it is true and indeed CO2 is the SOLE REASON for destroying the human civilisation if we don't reduce it in the future.

What can we do?

Ask the Chinese and Indian to stop growing? They would probably point their guns at you to mind your own @%@$% business. Then what? Start a war against them to stop emitting more CO2? Don't be so naive here, the political world is far more complicated than you would think. Just because by supporting Australia to "take the first step", we would make a great example and other countries will soon follow. It ain't going to happen with the other big polluters. And definitely wouldn't happen to those who are in power and in control of the world.  

Regardless, I would avoid taking evidences FROM THE MEDIA as the source for your argument. It's pointless because it is impossible for anyone to verify the truth or the true intention behind the message. 

A news article on two polar bear accidentally made it across the ocean on ice and get shot by police is NOT an evidence that global warming is killing them. It's just a simple tragic story hyped up by the media.


----------



## Wysiwyg (19 July 2008)

To help everyone become conscious or to remind people of the GROWING WORLD POLLUTION PROBLEM (is that plain english??) a title like `global warming` is very helpful.Although I don`t believe it is happening now, the environmental damage and destruction from continued poor practices from big business and individual humans will be irreversible at some stage. 
What is the price of economic growth with the present day government acceptance of burnt fossil fuel emissions.Pumping more into the atmosphere is the price.Australia to take responsibility for the emission it makes is a start that has to be made.Others will follow, other countries will be asked to reduce.Humans may be daft but when their lives/lifestyles are threatened they will smarten up.

Now how can we reduce burnt fossil fuel emissions?


----------



## Pat (19 July 2008)

Doris said:


> How so?  Do a google on 'penguin chicks dying+antarctica'
> I got 9440 sites!
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/wor...-penguins-frozen-death-freak-rain-storms.html



Sorry, the sarcastic symbol was to represent my post. 

My point is that the media don't always take things out of context. Many species are vunerable to GW/warming of specific areas/CC (call it what you will) and it's not hype or misinformation.

I guess I’m no good at sarcasm and I hear that’s the lowest form of wit.


----------



## Pat (19 July 2008)

jtb said:


> *Hence the earth has lost control of its CO2 balance all on its own , 4 times in the last 400,000 years.*
> 
> As to a sense of loss, after spending many years living remotely (in a swag) amidst our wonderful outback my sense of loss, although at first magnified (Alpine forests are now the the goldfields) was  tempered by scales of time and the magnitude of the landscape......



I fully understand natural change and have limited but more knowledge of earth history than most people. I agree the warming/change/cooling is natural but I can't help think that this age of petro chemical crap is contributing in some way. 
This is most certainly an assumption. Saying we are not having an effect is an assumption to.


----------



## Pat (19 July 2008)

wayneL said:


> jtb
> 
> Fantastic post. Thanks for your erudite and balanced view.
> 
> ...



Wayne I agree 100% that we aren’t doing enough to live with Mother Nature.
The thing is we have the technology to not only stop our so called global warming, but stop most other pollutants.
Electric cars, hydrogen fuels, solar cells, it’s all here and now. Build your runways and Hwy's. But change what we use for energy.
Eg. Planes can’t really run off a battery eh?
Now if some smart mofo out there discovers a way to run a turbine using hydrogen. Then we got enviro friendly jets. 
It's easy, just pump money into it instead of Iraq, Hmmm too late.
The money holds us back. Just not profitable yet to change.


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 July 2008)

Temjin said:


> So much emotion here!
> 
> Let's be realistic here fellows. I may be a skeptic of the whole GW b---****, but LET'S assume once that it is true and indeed CO2 is the SOLE REASON for destroying the human civilisation if we don't reduce it in the future.
> 
> What can we do? etc .



Temjin 
I'm gonna put the counter argument ...
Goes like this .... 

Let's be realistic...  Carbon trading (in whatever form) is gonna happen , with or without the approval of the detractors.

PS Detractors being a seriously small percentage in Australia

PS China and India will eventually do their bit - but hell it will be a hard pill for us all to swallow


----------



## spooly74 (19 July 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> spooly , you say that "It should be the goal of the IPCC to find flaws in their model".
> Sure they should constantly check and improve their model.
> 
> But hey, if their model is telling them something pretty alarming - then are you suggesting that , just because it's alarming, they should ignore it?




No not at all.
My point is that the model is not reliable enough (for me) to support the massive changes which are apparently necessary. 
The IPCC`s 4th report gives a range of 2 to 4.5 degrees per doubling of CO2. Observed warming is at most 1.5C per doubling of CO2 if you assume that all warming was solely from CO2 forcing, which it simply couldn't be.

The economic pain of change will be massive, so we’d better be very sure it is necessary.


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 July 2008)

spooly74 said:


> The economic pain of change will be massive, so we’d better be very sure it is necessary.



which incidentally flies in the face of Nicholas Stern and Ross Garnaut, who both claim that it's more expensive to wait that to act


----------



## Doris (19 July 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> exactly - but the deniers will twist that to say that the penguins are freezing to death, so let's warm things up a bit




You always give me a laugh as you think outside the square!



wayneL said:


> A strange and sad event to be sure. But this shows the delusional leaps of logic that people are making.
> 
> * *One weather event* does not prove or disprove anything.
> 
> ...




Your belligerence is conducive to fostering a more interactive thread!

Yes.  The science teacher in me demands evidence and not just presumptions and hypothesizing.

The Antarctic is 98% ice and is considered a desert because of the lack of precipitation.

Your comments came before my #1088 post.
The link I quoted also said:



> *In the past five years*, torrential rains have become increasingly common there. We saw Adelie penguin chicks shivering during nearly six days of continuous storms.
> 
> If it had been snow, *like in the old days*, their down would be perfectly equipped to cope. But they can’t take rain. It’s like wearing a down jacket that gets soaking wet.
> 
> ...




Penguins' food (krill) moves south because of warmer waters making the poor birds waddle farther, at a mile an hour.
Ice breaks up and the penguins are forced into the water; the under developed chicks don't survive.



> "Penguins are going about 60 kilometers [37 miles] farther to find food than they did a decade ago,"
> 
> In 2006 she visited the seasonal sea-ice home of the penguin colony featured in the 2005 movie March of the Penguins. The region was uncharacteristically ice free.




http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/07/080702-endangered-penguins.html




wayneL said:


> Doris,
> 
> Read it and weep. http://www.emporia.edu/earthsci/student/fitch1/abrupt_e.html




Why would you find pleasure in my weeping?  

I was quoting what local people told me in Costa Maya and Belize last year.

Your excellent site gives one of the three theories for the Mayan demise although the cores from the lakes give logical evidence of climate change as do the cores taken from the Antarctic.



> The Maya Civilization existed in some form from 2000 B.C. to A.D. 1500 on and near the YucatÃ¡n Peninsula of southern Mexico and northern Central America.




The Mayan priests were brilliant in using the past to understand the present and the present to understand the future. The Mayan calendar is considered to be more accurate than the Gregorian one that we use.

Mayan historians wanted to create a calendar that could be used to record history for centuries. This led to the _Long Count calendar_. The Long Count incorporates an era called the Great Cycle, which lasts approximately 5,125.36 years. *The idea that the world is on its way to an end comes from the Long Count:*

A Mayan historian began recording events on both the Long Count and Gregorian calendars. Scholars then compared the dates on both calendars and confirmed the beginning of the current Great Cycle as August 13, 3114 B.C., making the end of the fourth Great Cycle ”” December 21, 2012. 

Theorists believe this is the day that the world will end, and all living things on earth will die.

However, the Mayans themselves don’t actually believe that the world is going to end at the end of this cycle. In fact, they believe that it’s a time of great celebration and luck when the planet lasts through a full Great Cycle. After all, we’ve made it safely through three other Great Cycles, and the world is still turning.

What makes this cycle so different, some believe, is that it ends on a winter solstice. The sun will align with the center of the milky way. This particular event happens only every 26,000 years or so. 

Mel Gibson's 2006 movie _Apolcalypto_ had an extreme focus on violence and its complete exclusion of the Maya's brilliant advances in art, science, mathematics and astronomy.  

It aroused curiosity about the demise of the Mayans and _The 2012 Theory_ 

Information on the calendar: 
http://www.civilization.ca/civil/Maya/mmc06eng.html
http://www.maya-portal.net/

*Have a look at the clip on 'The 2012 Theory'*:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5MS5Odp2qQ&feature=related

This is their reference site:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10mar_stormwarning.htm?list862664

Wouldn't it be ironic if current solar storms were the cause of GW...!


----------



## Wysiwyg (20 July 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Thanks for this Wys ....
> 
> Not sure about Anna Bligh's long term green credentials -
> 
> I mean, Bob Carr (ex NSW Premier) was seriously green deep down.   Anna Bligh ...mmmm  maybe - guess I'll owe her an apology if she turns out to be genuine, but the Qld treatment of the Traveston Dam question (average depth about 2metres or less even when full) when other options half the plan area and a quarter the disruption to farmland were available is a bit of a worry




I see what you mean there 2020, the bulk of Australias coal is in Queensland and one of the major exports and will be for the longer term.It`s all go for infrastructure in Brisbane with a duplication of the gateway bridge (the big one) and a tunnel underneath the river presently under construction.Gearing up for the southerners drift north.lol  

Jobs jobs jobs ... expansion, more, bigger, better et cetera.Makes the world go around, with a bit of gas and a bit of coal and a bit of uranium.

And lots more vehicles on the road.

The vision ... 



> Smart State is the Queensland Government’s vision of a state where knowledge, creativity and innovation drive *economic growth to improve **prosperity and quality of life for all Queenslanders*.The vision is for Queensland to develop into a knowledge-based economy and diversify its traditional economic base of mining and agriculture.




You can`t stop the wheel but you may slow it down.


----------



## 2020hindsight (20 July 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> It`s all go for infrastructure in Brisbane with a duplication of the gateway bridge (the big one) and a tunnel underneath the river presently under construction.Gearing up for the southerners drift north.lol



and we're re-marking the Pacific Highway between Sydney and Bris - three lanes north, one lane south


----------



## Naked shorts (20 July 2008)

Wysiwyg said:


> It`s all go for infrastructure in Brisbane with a duplication of the gateway bridge (the big one) and a tunnel underneath the river presently under construction.Gearing up for the southerners drift north.lol




The southerns are already up here, I see "victoria - on the move (to queensland)" license plates fairly regularly now. And the infrastructure in Brisbane is a bit behind, its been long past due since we needed these advancements, one they are done, we need a duplication of coronation drive, riverside express way and the whole Gold Coast highway.

Before Brisbane, I came from Melbourne and now, Im ready to move to Sydney..


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 July 2008)

Well I wish this global warming would hurry up a bit around here (Tassie).

Damn cold outside right now, was down to about zero last night and the forecast top for tomorrow is 7. And that's with stong winds too - just to make sure there's no chance of keeping anything warm.

Maybe I'll have to join the rush to Qld. Or at least get them to burn all that coal faster and warm the planet up a bit. ::


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 July 2008)

I think   (who knows for sure)  that the sceptics are starting to admit that the Arctic is losing ice bigtime....

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/ice_sheets.html

Here is NASA's opinion of the loss of ice in Antartica as well ... 



> The survey shows that there was a net loss of ice from the combined polar ice sheets between 1992 and 2002 and a corresponding rise in sea level. The survey documents for the first time extensive thinning of the West Antarctic ice shelves and an increase in snowfall in the interior of Greenland, as well as thinning at the edges. *All are signs of a warming climate predicted by computer models*.


----------



## spooly74 (23 July 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> I think   (who knows for sure)  that the sceptics are starting to admit that the Arctic is losing ice bigtime....
> 
> http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/ice_sheets.html
> 
> Here is NASA's opinion of the loss of ice in Antartica as well ...




Measuring observations is easy.

Whats causing it?



			
				spool; said:
			
		

> The IPCC`s 4th report gives a range of 2 to 4.5 degrees per doubling of CO2. Observed warming is at most 1.5C per doubling of CO2 if you assume that all warming was solely from CO2 forcing, which it simply couldn't be.




Are there climate models that accurately predict this year's climate change? 

 if a model cannot predict past and present ... it is flawed 

To quote Johnny-five ...._need more input_


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 July 2008)

spooly74 said:


> Measuring observations is easy.
> 
> Whats causing it?



let's take it step at a time spooly
you agree that both poles are melting ?


----------



## 2020hindsight (23 July 2008)

Spooly,  I’m guessing you studied applied maths – 
so a typical  book is spun into the air about it’s axis of maximum moment of inertia – i.e. the front of the book is spinning in a plane -  is it stable? – yes?

so a book is spun into the air about it’s axis of minimum moment of inertia – i.e. the top of the book is spinning in a plane -  is it stable? – yes?

Finally a book is spun into the air about it’s axis of intermediate moment of inertia – i.e. the binding (tries to) spin in a plane -  is it stable? – no. – first impression is that it’s chaotic. 

Yet – knowing exactly the way the book starts its motion at time zero permits you to calculate ( theoretically) the exact position of the book as it twists and turns…. (personally I found that one a real eye-opener at Uni) .  So what appears chaotic is not really. 

Another example is a building subjected to a known earthquake – what will be the shape of that building at time t  when it has been subjected to an El Centro EQ.(treated as a standard  ?   Again, at first impression chaotic, but totally calculable (provided you know all the properties).   

(PS even if not perfectly calculable, you get it roughly right – and good enough for practical purposes). 

Pinball is shot into a pinball machine (without pushing the machine around) – predictable? – yes – provided the various spring constants etc are all quantified.

Earth’s climate ? – bloody difficult to know all the properties of the model (I concede) – but still , it’s not impossible.  (and certainly not impossible to get it roughly right) 

Of course predicting future sunspot activity etc gets into the crystal ball stuff  - but the probability that it's about to build up again from a recent 2006-7 low to a peak at about 2012, - according to an 11 year cycle that Galileo discovered (for chyssake) seems a reasonable assumption (surely)


----------



## spooly74 (23 July 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Spooly,  I’m guessing you studied applied maths –



Not in school  



2020hindsight said:


> Earth’s climate ? – bloody difficult to know all the properties of the model (I concede) – but still , it’s not impossible.  (and certainly not impossible to get it roughly right)
> 
> Of course predicting future sunspot activity etc gets into the crystal ball stuff  - but the probability that it's about to build up again from a recent 2006-7 low to a peak at about 2012, - according to an 11 year cycle that Galileo discovered (for chyssake) seems a reasonable assumption (surely)



I would say it`s almost impossible to produce an accurate climate model.
My beef is with the co2 debate, they clearly have their input and predictions wrong here.....and now we have to pay a tax?? 

There seems to be some dispute over when solar minimum has occured, but yes, solar forcing is soon to increase with the cycle.


----------



## IFocus (5 August 2008)

Those that don't believe in GW seem to have some great backing similar to what the tobacco industry had.

With friends like Exxon-Mobil you ............



> Who is behind climate change deniers?







> When the tobacco industry was feeling the heat from scientists who showed that smoking caused cancer, it took decisive action.
> 
> It engaged in a decades-long public relations campaign to undermine the medical research and discredit the scientists. The aim was not to prove tobacco harmless but to cast doubt on the science.
> 
> In May this year, the multibillion-dollar oil giant Exxon-Mobil acknowledged that it had been doing something similar. It announced that it would cease funding nine groups that had fuelled a global campaign to deny climate change.




http://www.watoday.com.au/opinion/who-is-behind-climate-change-deniers-20080802-3ou6.html?page=1


----------



## --B-- (5 August 2008)

IFocus said:


> Those that don't believe in GW seem to have some great backing similar to what the tobacco industry had.
> 
> With friends like Exxon-Mobil you ............




ahh this old doozy. anything brought up to discredit the AGW "science" is funded by the evil oil companies..

yet the billions behind the AGW hype is apparently all 'good' money? 

does the fact that supporting the green agenda with billions of dollars in funding is always worth a swag of votes at election time mean anything at all?? 

does the fact that many 'scientific organisations' exist solely to research AGW and therefore it is 100% in their interests to further propagate this hype mean anything?? (not to mention they are usually propped up by funding mentioned above)


----------



## Rafa (5 August 2008)

regardless of people's opinion on global warming...

if a megacorporation like exxon stop funding groups whose sole purpose is to deny climate change, that pretty much signals the end of the road for the anti global warming science.


----------



## --B-- (5 August 2008)

Rafa said:


> regardless of people's opinion on global warming...
> 
> if a megacorporation like exxon stop funding groups whose sole purpose is to deny climate change, that pretty much signals the end of the road for the anti global warming brigade.




similarly if vote-buying politicians cease funding 'scientific organisations' whose sole purpose is to promote AGW, the AGW brigade will die as quickly as they appeared.

to suggest one side is completely honest and transparent while the other is not is sheer hypocrisy.


----------



## Pat (5 August 2008)

--B-- said:


> similarly if vote-buying politicians cease funding 'scientific organisations' whose sole purpose is to promote AGW, the AGW brigade will die as quickly as they appeared.
> 
> to suggest one side is completely honest and transparent while the other is not is sheer hypocrisy.



there are extents. You on Exxon's side?

I would also hope most scientists search for the truth. (too ideal?)


----------



## --B-- (5 August 2008)

Pat said:


> there are extents. You on Exxon's side?



.
im on no side. im skeptical of the "science" used to justiffy AWG and the measures imposed on us for the misguided purpose of 'fixing' the climate.



> I would also hope most scientists search for the truth. (too ideal?)




sadly i think there are many scientists out there who's "science" is driven largely to increase their funding


----------



## Doris (5 August 2008)

Did you see Four Corners's program _Tipping Point_ last night?

"A voyage into the Arctic to witness the vanishing of the vast sea ice... Can it be halted - or is it past tipping point?" 


*Dr Ted Scambos*: less reflective ice -> warming oceans & permafrost -> release of CO2 & methane -> more GW

*Dr Robie Macdonald*: Arctic a sentinel & export of change -> global weather & ecosystems

The video of the whole show and extended interviews:

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2008/20080804_arctic/interviews.htm


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 August 2008)

Doris said:


> Did you see Four Corners's program _Tipping Point_ last night?
> 
> "A voyage into the Arctic to witness the vanishing of the vast sea ice... Can it be halted - or is it past tipping point?"
> 
> ...



You bet I did, and thanks for the link Doris.  Bludy brilliant. 

I recall Wayne saying "POLAR BEARS ARE NOT DROWNING"  (the capitals were his)...   well that show reinforces their dire predicament - and repeats the fact that the US have been forced to place polar bears on the endangered species list 

Bore Corners 

I heard today (can't find a link) - something about a Victorian Court has required that some seaside property must disclaim it is vulnerable to rising sealevel (I imagine something like floodprone land)  

Gee that is gonna be a major laugh for the current owners innit? 


Ahh found it , post #1072


			
				wayneL said:
			
		

> North Sea ice IS smaller than it was in 1979, but *not anywhere even remotely close to what the AGW alarmists* would have people believe. I have demonstrated that... not that it isn't less, but that it's a lot less "less" than AGW hypocrites represent.
> 
> *POLAR BEARS AREN'T DROWNING *as the Al Bore imbecile foisted on a gullible and concerned public.




Wayne, do yourself a favour and watch Bore Corners.


----------



## wayneL (5 August 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> You bet I did, and thanks for the link Doris.  Bludy brilliant.
> 
> I recall Wayne saying "POLAR BEARS ARE NOT DROWNING"  (the capitals were his)...   well that show reinforces their dire predicament - and repeats the fact that the US have been forced to place polar bears on the endangered species list
> 
> ...




:sleeping:

I deal in facts, not sensationalist propaganda.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/05/16/where-are-all-the-drowning-polar-bears/

^^^Good site BTW

Back to my hedonism.


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 August 2008)

wayneL said:


> :sleeping:
> 
> I deal in facts, not sensationalist propaganda.
> 
> ...



lol
It happens to be an icebreaker, 
people who know what they're talking about
you might learn somepin


----------



## wayneL (5 August 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> lol
> It happens to be an icebreaker,
> people who know what they're talking about
> you might learn somepin




Yep, I'll learn how journalists portray what they want to portray.


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 August 2008)

Pat said:


> there are extents. You on Exxon's side?
> 
> I would also hope most scientists search for the truth. (too ideal?)



The trouble is, quite simply, that most (all?) scientists involved with climate change research are employed by organizations which depend absolutely on man-made climate change being a major threat / not a threat for their continued survival.

You don't work for Holden and then come out saying that Ford cars are the best.

You don't work for Exxon and come out saying that climate change is about to wipe out life as we know it.

You don't work for the IPCC and say climate change isn't a serious and imminent threat.

There might be the odd scientist somewhere who is truly independent on the issue and doing worthwhile research. Trouble is, they'd likely be retired and aren't likely to say too much about whatever they find.


----------



## Smurf1976 (5 August 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> I recall Wayne saying "POLAR BEARS ARE NOT DROWNING"  (the capitals were his)...   well that show reinforces their dire predicament - and repeats the fact that the US have been forced to place polar bears on the endangered species list



Don't panic, Polar Bear's doing fine. He's soundly sleeping in front of the fire right now, having had a nice meal of fish and a bikkie. 

Polar Bear is my cat by the way. So named due to being mostly white with a thick coat and he eats mostly fish. ::

On a more practical note, Smurf's made an (admittedly small) effort to save energy. Nice new lights in the garage (used as a workshop) use about 320 watts in total, replacing the 1400 watts used by the previous inefficient halogen and incandescent lights. Much better quality lighting too.


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 August 2008)

btw smurf, polar bear numbers are expected to be reduced to 1/3rd in 40 years. 

But I'm pleased your cat is cozy. 

Here's another related issue - loss of forest , loss of arible land, lack of rain, lack of food,  (throw in the odd tribal war and refugee crisis ) - this is where it's heading folks - we're eating our cousins :-

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/05/2324304.htm?section=justin

Never mind,  "eat drink and be merry" 

PS I'm told that card carrying greenies are really celebrating the direction the world is heading in


----------



## Doris (5 August 2008)

RE:  Four Corners's program _Tipping Point_ last night

I was ignorant about permafrost until edified by Dr Romanovsky in this program. 100m thick in Alaska... much of it at minus one degree.  (Wikipedia says it's 1.493 km thick in Siberia.) Of course they can't predict the volume of its melt but - add it to the ice melt and... ?!  not to mention the methane and CO2 released into the atmosphere!

So easy and frightening to believe that the Arctic could be *ice-free during summer* by 2020 but _*definitely*_* by 2030*!  It's bad enough seeing the amount of ice in the NW passage in summer now!  Cruise ships go there!!

Some of the comments after 4corners are interesting:



> Author  	Dr Ian Allison (Co-chairman IPY)
> Date/Time 	04 Aug 2008 11:40:17pm
> Subject 	>>Re: mass balance in arctic and antarctic
> 
> ...






> Author  	phoenix
> Date/Time 	04 Aug 2008 11:43:19pm
> Subject 	>>>Re: mass balance in arctic and antarctic
> 
> And presumably, if the experts maths are right, a 7m sea level rise equals approximately a 700m retreat of the shoreline. Puts most of Australia's coastline well under water - including the Sydney CBD. I guess they'll just move Circular Quay up to Town Hall and increase the fares.






> Author  	Professor Amanda Lynch (Polar Climate Research)
> Date/Time 	04 Aug 2008 9:42:22pm
> Subject 	>>Re: tipping point
> 
> ...






> Author  	Dr Ian Allison (Co-chairman IPY)
> Date/Time 	04 Aug 2008 9:38:43pm
> Subject 	>Re: if the arctic is is shrinking what of the antactic
> 
> Over the last 30 years, antarctic sea ice has been constant in extent within statistical variability. On the short term of a few years it varies up and down naturally. *Around the Antarctic Peninsula however (the bit that sticks up to S. America) temperatures have been warming rapidly and sea ice has decreased*.




http://www2b.abc.net.au/tmb/Client/MessageList.aspx?b=21&t=54&te=True


----------



## wayneL (5 August 2008)

Current Arctic sea ice vs 1 year ago.

Draw your own conclusions as the IPCC won't be talking about this:


----------



## 2020hindsight (5 August 2008)

wayne
Watch that show (or maybe you already know), and you'll see how the fossil fuel companies - the likes of Russia etc - are salivating at the possibility that they'll be able to drill for oil and gas up there in the near future.  
Leaves the Saudi oilfields for dead apparently.


----------



## So_Cynical (6 August 2008)

Doris said:


> Did you see Four Corners's program _Tipping Point_ last night?
> http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2008/20080804_arctic/interviews.htm




Just watched the replay tonight...amazing numbers.

25% of the northern hemisphere land mass is permafrost...The Co2 
and Methane locked up in the permafrost is equal to that already in 
the atmosphere...and its 2 degrees away from significant summer melting.

The arctic receives about the same amount of sunlight that the equator gets, its 
just that it gets most of it in 1 hit, there is evidence that the polar ice has been 
there for 60 million years...ice reflects sunlight and water don't, melting sea ice is 
like a runaway train.

This is serious....the Atlantic conveyor is dependent on that cold water, if the 
conveyor stops western/northern Europe freezes....at least in winter, the summers 
will be nice though.



wayneL said:


> Current Arctic sea ice vs 1 year ago.
> 
> Draw your own conclusions as the IPCC won't be talking about this:




If u watched the program u would know that that ice (this northern winters ice) is 
1 year old sea ice and not proper old ice like there used to be there.


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 August 2008)

So_Cynical said:


> If u watched the program u would know that that ice (this northern winters ice) is
> 1 year old sea ice and not proper old ice like there used to be there.



... "rotting ice"  as the ice-spotting lady in the chopper called it (who gives forward-scouting-intelligence to the icebreaker captain) 

I think they also made reference to the words "scientific trend"


----------



## Pat (6 August 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> The trouble is, quite simply, that most (all?) scientists involved with climate change research are employed by organizations which depend absolutely on man-made climate change being a major threat / not a threat for their continued survival.
> 
> You don't work for Holden and then come out saying that Ford cars are the best.
> 
> ...



I can't think of a company would profit from advertising GW? (except the advertising companies )

You would think the crazy scientists who live in Greenland/Antartica, would search only for the truth. To me it is illogical to go to some extent only to fudge, fake, exaggerate results, just for more funding... funding a lie? 

What 'bad' has come from this GW debate? The push to change?


----------



## wayneL (6 August 2008)

Pat said:


> You would think the crazy scientists who live in Greenland/Antartica, would search only for the truth. To me it is illogical to go to some extent only to fudge, fake, exaggerate results, just for more funding... funding a lie?



Absolutely.

There are large sums involved here and scientists are humans and self-interested. Anyone that has been around any sort of research community AND is not jerking themselves off, knows this.



Pat said:


> What 'bad' has come from this GW debate? The push to change?



Yeah, but the wrong change. Climate change on the macro scale has very little to do with anthropogenic factors. Environmental degradation does and while the focus is on CO2, all else is ignored.

About the only REAL change I see are "green taxes". These are supposed to be revenue neutral, but of course they ain't, and fund various pork barreling exercises.

Let's be honest shall we? Of all those squealing about AGW and other environmental malaise, how many have changed their lifestyle substantially?

None? Thought so.

:sleeping:


----------



## Pat (6 August 2008)

wayneL said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> There are large sums involved here and scientists are humans and self-interested. Anyone that has been around any sort of research community AND is not jerking themselves off, knows this.
> 
> ...



I'm gonna give the scientists the benefit of the doubt. The doubt being the corporate's out there are worse than the scientists (bigger $$$ signs in their eyes).

What changes do you expect from people Wayne?

Most changes required for us to live "WITH" Mother Nature just aren't feasible yet. Time, awareness, and I guess some tax's will change this.
We have had it too cheap for too long, now we shall pay up.

(I don't agree with the tax's but It's a sure thing. The gov't will tax everything they fricken can. eg. GST on a tip levy, tax on tax's.)


----------



## spooly74 (6 August 2008)

Alaska sues over listing polar bear as threatened.



> ANCHORAGE, Alaska - The state of Alaska sued Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne on Monday, seeking to reverse his decision to list polar bears as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act.




http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080805/ap_on_re_us/polar_bear_lawsuit


----------



## ghotib (6 August 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> The trouble is, quite simply, that most (all?) scientists involved with climate change research are employed by organizations which depend absolutely on man-made climate change being a major threat / not a threat for their continued survival.



"organizations which depend absolutely..."???  What organisations are you thinking of? Universities? Nope. CSIRO? Nope. NASA? Nope... That's already a heck of a lot of employing organisations that have plenty of work to do whether or not man-made climate change is a threat. What's more, there would now be immense kudos to any group who could come up with peer-reviewed, good science that strongly challenged the orthodoxy. 

You surprised me with this post Smurf. I usually look to you for facts, for which I thank you, not wild generalisations like this. Must have been a cold night in Tassie. 

BTW, I *think* I owe you for one of my favourite blogs: http://www.ecogeek.org/. If so, thanks for that too.

Cheers,

Ghoti


----------



## wayneL (6 August 2008)

Pat said:


> I
> What changes do you expect from people Wayne?
> 
> Most changes required for us to live "WITH" Mother Nature just aren't feasible yet.



Living a less crassly consumptive, less glossy magazine, less ego driven, less pseudo mock aristocratic lifestyle would be a start.

Do we really need a McMansion?
Do we really need a new X5 every two years to take the kids to school?
Do we really need a dishwasher?
Do we really need some of the rubbish we buy?

We can live more modestly and not try to look rich.
We can ride a bike or walk and have a modest car for when necessary
We can wash up with a cloth.
We can refrain from consumerist plastic rubbish.

Just use less - resources, energy, water.

It's easy and everybody can do it.

It's not about CO2 (but emissions would certainly reduce), it's about resources, waste and pollution. But people, even the AGW alarmists are not interested in that; the only real solution.

Even those governments levying so-called green taxes aren't interested in that solution because of the current monetary system. It would trash the western economies and probably crash the whole monetary system.

That's why "green taxes" are a farce and a ruse at best and reducing emissions a pipe dream.

That's why I no longer give a #### until I see the klaxons doing something other than making millions by making films and scooping up government research funds and living large (IPCC meetings at tropical resorts anyone?)

Paaaa!!!


----------



## professor_frink (6 August 2008)

wayneL said:


> Do we really need a dishwasher?




yes.


----------



## Pat (6 August 2008)

I might add the REAL changes are held back by the big business, not the gov's, nor the people.
For eg. the electric Car... a perfectly feasible option, they made some, they never took off, they gave it bad publicity, they held back breakthroughs in battery technology. They killed the concept.


----------



## Pat (6 August 2008)

wayneL said:


> Do we really need a McMansion?
> Do we really need a new X5 every two years to take the kids to school?
> Do we really need a dishwasher?
> Do we really need some of the rubbish we buy?
> ...



I think the need for this comes from the media force feeding the shyte eh?
Generation Y are the above, because they've been fed the garbage since day one. Blame whoever but as long as we're told this is "cool" don't blame the people. They're sheep.

You might also find its the so called upper class that contribute more than the smaller money makers. Not many can afford what you've posted above, let alone endulge in it.

I ask what is driving this mentality?


----------



## Pat (6 August 2008)

professor_frink said:


> yes.



You can have dishwasher if it runs on solar power, and your on tankwater


----------



## professor_frink (6 August 2008)

Pat said:


> You can have dishwasher if it runs on solar power, and your on tankwater




I get that green power thing so that's taken care of. The water isn't that much of an issue. My dishwasher uses about 14 litres per wash(or so it said on the sticker when we bought it). A full dishwasher load of dishes would require the sink to be refilled half way through if I was washing them manually, so I'd use 10-12 anyway.


----------



## Fishbulb (6 August 2008)

well, this is as good a way as any to make a first post. 

when it comes to the new world religion of global warming, i like to take the stance of skeptic. 

 - http://antigreen.blogspot.com/


----------



## gfresh (6 August 2008)

Not just global warming prohorts that are paid to push a certain agenda, the anti-GW side is being nicely sponsored by Exxon.. No surprise.



> Brad Miller, chairman of the US House of Representatives oversight committee on science and technology, last year said Exxon's support for sceptics "appears to be an effort to distort public discussion". The funding of an array of think tanks and institutes which house climate sceptics and deniers also worried Britain's premier scientific body, the Royal Society. It found that in 2005, Exxon distributed nearly $3 million to 39 groups which "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence that greenhouse gases are driving climate change". Its protests helped force Exxon's recent retreat.




http://www.smh.com.au/news/global-w...nge-smokescreen/2008/08/01/1217097533885.html


Blah: 



> Andy Pitman, an editor of the prestigious international Journal Of Climate, says there are good reasons why global warming sceptics cannot get a run in peer-reviewed scientific literature. "We would kill, literally kill, for a good paper that proved the science on global warming was wrong," Pitman says. "Then I could retire and accept my chair at Harvard. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen, and there's vast amounts of evidence why."




http://www.smh.com.au/news/global-w...nsus-is-growing/2008/08/01/1217097533889.html


----------



## noco (6 August 2008)

Fishbulb said:


> well, this is as good a way as any to make a first post.
> 
> when it comes to the new world religion of global warming, i like to take the stance of skeptic.
> 
> - http://antigreen.blogspot.com/




Ha Fishbulb,
What a great topic you posted on GW. I have been in your skeptic club ever since this ugly GW thing raised its head.
Professor Bob Carter, James Cook Uni. Townsville is of the same opinion.
Hope KRudd and Penny Wong read this article; not that it will make much difference to them for they are hell bent on sending our country down the "gurgler" with cost to the economy and loss of jobs for the "working families" not to memtion the poor old pensioners.
Krudd and Swanie must pleased with the media diversion on Peter Costello as it has taken the attention away from GW FOR A WHILE.


----------



## IFocus (6 August 2008)

wayneL said:


> Living a less crassly consumptive, less glossy magazine, less ego driven, less pseudo mock aristocratic lifestyle would be a start.
> 
> Do we really need a McMansion?
> Do we really need a new X5 every two years to take the kids to school?
> ...





I can see your point Wayne because of the above we are pretty much screwed its just not going to change.

Only a pandemic will save the planet but I think culling 2/3's of the current world population would be required.

I just keep thinking that we once lived on Mars but we fu%ked it and had to come to earth..........


----------



## Fishbulb (6 August 2008)

noco said:


> Ha Fishbulb,
> What a great topic you posted on GW. I have been in your skeptic club ever since this ugly GW thing raised its head.
> Professor Bob Carter, James Cook Uni. Townsville is of the same opinion.
> Hope KRudd and Penny Wong read this article; not that it will make much difference to them for they are hell bent on sending our country down the "gurgler" with cost to the economy and loss of jobs for the "working families" not to memtion the poor old pensioners.
> Krudd and Swanie must pleased with the media diversion on Peter Costello as it has taken the attention away from GW FOR A WHILE.




thanks

and yes, i've read what the unfortunate penny wong has said about co2. laughable if it wasn't so serious. but on the upside the evidence, or lack of - against this new religion is beginning to mount.

i guess i'm ever surprised by human beings.


----------



## 2020hindsight (6 August 2008)

Fishbulb said:


> i guess i'm ever surprised by human beings.



me too
and the bs they can pedal 

Like that site of yours lol.  "Greenies hate people" ?? 
(only selfish ones m8, only selfish ones)


----------



## wayneL (6 August 2008)

Pat said:


> To me it is illogical to go to some extent only to fudge, fake, exaggerate results, just for more funding... funding a lie?



FYI


> Rotten eggheads
> 
> With no celebrities to talk about, last week's earthquake has been making all the headlines in LA while providing an opportunity for people with overgrown beards and pieces of cheese lodged in their hair to get on TV - ie, earthquake scientists. These eggheads haven't been allowed out of their laboratories since the last serious rumbler in 1994. To be honest with you, I worry about the scientists more than I worry about the earthquakes. *After all, look at the case of the anthrax attacker.
> 
> If you believe Sunday's newspapers, he was a biowarfare scientist named Bruce Ivins, who found himself twiddling his thumbs after the Cold War and thus came up with a dastardly plan to win more money for anthrax research*. It worked. The Government proposed a $877 million contract for a vaccine based on two patents co-invented by none other than Ivins himself. Could the same thing happen in LA? Could an unloved earthquake scientist plant explosives along the San Andreas Fault in the hope of triggering the Big One, just to teach everyone a lesson? Stranger things have surely happened.


----------



## So_Cynical (6 August 2008)

Its unfortunate that what should be a scientific debate on this forum 
and globally has degenerated into a political debate.


----------



## wayneL (6 August 2008)

So_Cynical said:


> Its unfortunate that what should be a scientific debate on this forum
> and globally has degenerated into a political debate.



Because that's exactly what it is.

The science is fluffy at best, a hypothesis, not even a genuine theory.


----------



## Pat (6 August 2008)

wayneL said:


> FYI
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Meh.
Same could be said about the web site above. There will always be the crap to sift through.

The climate is changing, we can see it, some scientists measure it, but the only way we will ever be able to tell if it's "warming" is wait'n'see. 

I think its a valid debate, with positive out comes. The science is fluffy for all sides of the argument. I guess it makes it more interesting.


----------



## wayneL (7 August 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> me too
> and the bs they can pedal
> 
> Like that site of yours lol.  "Greenies hate people" ??
> *(only selfish ones m8, only selfish ones) *




They would be the ones that preach AGW and expect everyone to change their lifestyles, except them, wouldn't it.

Al Bore comes to mind as selfish.
Perhaps BHP bridge building AGW klaxons as well.


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 August 2008)

wayneL said:


> They would be the ones that preach AGW and expect everyone to change their lifestyles, except them, wouldn't it.
> 
> Al Bore comes to mind as selfish.
> Perhaps BHP bridge building AGW klaxons as well.




Wayne
you're gonna have to stop getting lost in your Ad hominem sidetracks.


----------



## wayneL (7 August 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Wayne
> you're gonna have to stop getting lost in your Ad hominem sidetracks.




Oh Al can stand up to it with Nobel Peace prize and Oscar in hand... not to mention millions of dollars and an energy hungry mansion and lifestyle.

As for sensitivities to generalities, reactions to having accidentally touched a hypocrite nerve, I can do nothing about.


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 August 2008)

wayneL said:


> Oh Al can stand up to it with Nobel Peace prize and Oscar in hand... not to mention millions of dollars and an energy hungry mansion and lifestyle.
> 
> As for sensitivities to generalities, reactions to having accidentally touched a hypocrite nerve, I can do nothing about.




wayne look over your posts , your principal (unprincipled imo) reason for puring water on the GW debate is that Al Gore lives in a big house.  

accidentally touched a hypocrite nerve,  what the ??  lol

Wayne , what you may or may not have preceived during private discussions on PM is your business.  It happens to be wrong, but no matter.

And fial point, I would have thought that PM's are just that – personal, not for general distribution – that would go double for those sent to both Joe and yourself – which were indeed in the form of a complaint , yes? you agree?

hey, your ethics are yours and for you to live with.


----------



## wayneL (7 August 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> wayne look over your posts , your principal (unprincipled imo) reason for puring water on the GW debate is that Al Gore lives in a big house.



Wrong, however Big Al is the primary beacon of hypocrisy, so make no apology for mentioning it regularly as representative in general of AGW alarmists.

By the way, it is an interesting principle, being accused of lack of principles for highlighting lack of principle.



2020hindsight said:


> accidentally touched a hypocrite nerve,  what the ??  lol



Well... it happens when a man of principles speaks in a general way of lack of principle. The hypocrite usually responds... "He doth protest to much" etc



2020hindsight said:


> Wayne , what you may or may not have preceived during private discussions on PM is your business.  It happens to be wrong, but no matter.
> 
> And fial point, I would have thought that PM's are just that – personal, not for general distribution – that would go double for those sent to both Joe and yourself – which were indeed in the form of a complaint , yes? you agree?
> 
> hey, your ethics are yours and for you to live with.



As you have made references to your profession in the public forum, it is in the public domain. How accurate my perceptions of any such statements, are reflective only of the nebulousness of the same. Therefore your comment above is out of order and reflective of unsuccessful desperation to score debating points. F-

Sorry, you will have to improve your intellectual input.

As far as ethics are concerned: I am happy with my ethical position. What I say and how I live are completely congruent (bar obvious sarcasm)...  This only serves to highlight the incongruence of the likes of Al Bore, the tropical island holidaying IPCC panel and their followers.


----------



## Pat (7 August 2008)

I can here a wolf howling in this thread.


----------



## Fishbulb (7 August 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> me too
> and the bs they can pedal
> 
> Like that site of yours lol.  "Greenies hate people" ??
> (only selfish ones m8, only selfish ones)





a; it isn't my site

b; you clearly didn't read any of it

c; but that's okay


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 August 2008)

Fishbulb said:


> a; it isn't my site
> 
> b; you clearly didn't read any of it
> 
> c; but that's okay





I did actually, but not all, 
 the bit I thought was blatantly tainted was the sentence I quoted, that "greenies hate people" - lol. I would have thought that card carrying greenies (which I am not, buy Wayne is) would take offence   Personally I'm 100% behind nuclear power for instance. 

So fishbulb, how would you have answered the options above?
- If you say "uncertain but take action anyway", then I would consider that the opinion of a skeptic. (imo ok)  

If you said " I am against action despite the fact that I can't prove it isn't happening", then I would consder that Denialist.  (ditto)

Similar to this bloke's opinion :-

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/08/07/2327407.htm?section=justin



> Emission reduction scheme should be seen as 'insurance'
> Posted 7 hours 51 minutes ago
> 
> The federal bureaucrat who will implement Australia's carbon trading scheme has attacked climate change sceptics.
> ...


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 August 2008)

btw, did you watch the ABC Bore Corners show?

There is a good thread in the forum discussion there "The Elepahant in the room" 


> Even the most severe of the proposals to deal with CO2 emissions are rendered completely useless when you do a quick calculation.....
> 
> Exponential population growth ....... it does not matter what measures you put in place when we the
> Earth's population continues to explode.
> ...




So lol - what do the "International Christians" demonstrate against in Beijing? 
 China's one child policy !!

Seriously deluded dudes.


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 August 2008)

This wasn't a bad post either ...



> The science of climate change is now understood to an extent the basic trends are clear - consistent with what we see in the poles and mid-latitudes. What's needed is action by governments, corporations and the public. In so far as you may wish to look at some of the most up-to-date scientific literature in this regard, I recommend the CSIRO, BOM, NASA, Hadley Met, Potsdam Oceanographic Institute and the IPCC reports.


----------



## 2020hindsight (7 August 2008)

quick comment on Andrew Bolt 

remember the bloke who refuses to prorata our carbon emmissions per capita , insisting that China puts out more than us etc ..

lol - here he is (as he was on ABC radio today ) absolutely insisting that he be allowed to prorata when it suits him 

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24134693-25717,00.html



> Consider this. Australia, with just 20 million people, is sending the fifth biggest team to the Beijing Games, behind only China, the United States, Russia and Germany.
> 
> We're sending 434 athletes, when countries as populous as Britain, France, Italy, Japan, Brazil and Indonesia have happily made do with far fewer.
> 
> ...






> In fact, if the world sent athletes at the rate we do, the Beijing Olympics would have not 10,500 competitors but 145,500. It would need a city almost the size of Geelong to house them all.




equally he could say ...

In fact, if the world made *CO2 equivalent * at the rate we do, the world would have damn all future as we knw it.


----------



## wayneL (7 August 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> I did actually, but not all,
> the bit I thought was blatantly tainted was the sentence I quoted, that "greenies hate people" - lol. I would have thought that card carrying greenies (which I am not, buy Wayne is) would take offence



Why would ***greenies(see below) take offence? In the context mentioned, it's probably true.

The word "greenie" has a shifting meaning according to context and there are various "levels" of "greeniness".

Some are anti any sort of development, as such, they probably to harbour a sort of hatred for humankind. Some are more pragmatic; some greenies might be OK with nuclear in favour of old coal technology. There is a spectrum of people in the green movement.

Intelligence must be exercised in determining the context... hmmmm might be a problem there, as is obvious by me having to explain.


----------



## Pat (7 August 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> If you said " I am against action despite the fact that I can't prove it isn't happening", then I would consder that Denialist.  (ditto)



2020 I'd say this is the crux of the whole debate. You simply cannot deny the possibility humanity may be taking part in climate change.


----------



## wayneL (7 August 2008)

Pat said:


> 2020 I'd say this is the crux of the whole debate. You simply cannot deny the possibility humanity may be taking part in climate change.



The denialist (as well as hypocrite) is the person who does nothing about it. i.e. shoves it down everbody's throat yet continues with a consumerist energy hungry lifestyle.

4WDing would be a good example. 

Al Bore is the prime example.

It's not what you say or don't say that matters, it's what you do and/or don't do.

So I ask the question yet again: What are AGW klaxons *doing*?


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 August 2008)

Just thinking on the subject of "greenies hating people"...

I guess conservationists would claim that they at least loved the world, - and tried, even if they were unsuccessful to keep the thing on an even keel ...  Although Blind Freddy can see that conservationists are losing the battle with "the others",  .. industrialists?  and/or mankind in general? - given mankind's pest proportions these days and getting worse, partly thanks to the pope 



			
				Kurt Vonnegut said:
			
		

> - his last book ended in a poem .......
> "When the last living thing has died on account of us, how poetical it would be if earth could say in a voice floating up, perhaps from the floor of the Grand Canyon, it is done, people did not like it here. "




I guess also that Prince Phillip (greenie? who knows - what is a greenie anyway ? - but he's certainly had a lot to say about conservation) 



			
				Big Phil said:
			
		

> In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.




Still....
That is probably really saying "Give the other species a chance folks!"  rather than "I hate people"

As someone said, what we need is a "universal one child policy". 

PS :topic   Far be it for me to try to defend Prince Phillip in all his quotes lol - 
here are a couple of others 
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Prince_Philip,_Duke_of_Edinburgh



> To a British student in Papua New Guinea: "You managed not to get eaten then?"
> 
> When visiting China in 1986, he told a group of British students, "If you stay here much longer, you'll all be slitty-eyed";
> 
> Angering local residents in Lockerbie when on a visit to the town in 1993, the Prince said to a man who lived in a road where eleven people had been killed by wreckage from the Pan Am jumbo jet: "People usually say that after a fire it is water damage that is the worst. We are still trying to dry out Windsor Castle."


----------



## 2020hindsight (8 August 2008)

A few more of Prince Phillip's quotes :-


> For conservation to be successful it is necessary to take into consideration that it is a characteristic of man that he can only be relied upon to do anything consistently which is in his own interest. He may have occasional fits of conscience and moral rectitude but otherwise his actions are governed by self-interest. It follows then that whatever the moral reasons for conservation it will only be achieved by the inducement of profit or pleasure.
> World Wildlife Fund: British National Appeal Banquet, London, (1962)






> ...man must accept responsibilities in proportion to his power and, if we are to exercise these responsibilities so that all life can continue on earth, they must have a moral and philosophical basis. Simple self-interest, economic profit and absolute materialism are no longer enough... It has been made perfectly clear that a concern for any part of life on this planet - human, plant or animal, wild or tame - is a concern for all life. A threat to any part of the environment is a threat to the whole environment, but we must have a basis of assessment of these threats, not so that we can establish a priority of fears, but so that we can make a positive contribution to improvement and ultimate survival.
> 
> It is frequently more rewarding merely to ask pertinent questions. It may get someone to go and look for an answer. If you get a silly answer, which can easily happen, you can return to the charge with even more telling effect. Whatever happens, don't give up and don't despair. Results may not be immediately apparent, but you may have touched a receptive chord without knowing it. Even the most unsympathetic and unenlightened politician, industrialist or bureaucrat begins to take notice when a lot of people write about the same subject.
> 
> ...






> A new criterion has been added, the conservation of the environment so that in the long run life, including human life, can continue. This new consideration must be taken into account at all levels and in all departments of government and in the boardrooms of every industrial enterprise. It is no longer sufficient simply to quantify the elements of existence as in old-fashioned material economics; conservation means taking notice of the quality of existence as well...The problem is of course to give some value to that quality and perhaps the only way to do this is to try and work out the cost in terms of loss of amenities, loss of holiday and recreation facilities, loss of property values, loss of contact with nature, loss of health standards and loss of food resources, if proper conservation methods are not used. Looked at in that light it may well turn out that money spent on proper pollution control, urban and rural planning and the control of exploitation of wild stocks of plants or animals on land and in the sea, is the less expensive alternative in the long run...The conservation of nature, the proper care for the human environment and a general concern for the long-term future of the whole of our planet are absolutely vital if future generations are to have a chance to enjoy their existence on this earth.
> The Australian Conservation Foundation April Canberra (1970)


----------



## Pat (8 August 2008)

wayneL said:


> The denialist (as well as hypocrite) is the person who does nothing about it. i.e. shoves it down everbody's throat yet continues with a consumerist energy hungry lifestyle.
> 
> 4WDing would be a good example.
> 
> ...



It's not really our life style Wayne. We can have our cake and eat it too.
Granted we must stop the excess consumption. But you can have your X5 (Don't know why you'd want one) if your using electricity to power your car, and so on. We can do it, but why aren't we?

Is it the consumer who ultimately decides?

I asked you before, "What do you want the peeps to do?" Apart form the usual, save water, walk to the shop, wear a jumper, blah blah blah.
Our hands are tied (mainly by money) and worse still we are constantly fed crapola from the media about what we should and shouldn't have. 
Should the process not start from here? Why won't world govt's push a little harder for greener technology? Why is it only Toyota and Honda that make Hybrid production cars?
You put the onus on the individual, but any significant change needs to come from elsewhere, does it not?

We live in a consumerist energy hungry world, lead by consumerist energy hungry leaders. Are you surprised the people are the same way?

P.S. How much do you know about 4WD's and 4WDing? Greenie!


----------



## wayneL (8 August 2008)

Pat said:


> It's not really our life style Wayne. We can have our cake and eat it too.
> Granted we must stop the excess consumption. But you can have your X5 (Don't know why you'd want one) if your using electricity to power your car, and so on. We can do it, but why aren't we?
> 
> Is it the consumer who ultimately decides?
> ...



Well I really need not say a thing.


> P.S. How much do you know about 4WD's and 4WDing? Greenie!



Without being an outright enthusiast, I know lots. Always had them on the horse farm.


----------



## Pat (8 August 2008)

wayneL said:


> Well I really need not say a thing.



Then why have an issue with anyone who "preaches" AGW? Because they own a V8 to tow their boat they don't have any right to voice an opinion? (I don't see anyone, shoving anything, down anybodies throat.)



wayneL said:


> Without being an outright enthusiast, I know lots. Always had them on the horse farm.



So why is 4WDing a good example?


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 August 2008)

Pat said:


> Then why have an issue with anyone who "preaches" AGW? Because they own a V8 to tow their boat they don't have any right to voice an opinion?



Anyone even remotely concerned about the issue wouldn't want a boat or 4WD in the first place unless it's needed for income generation.

You can't expect me to take anyone too seriously if on one hand they run around shouting about AGW whilst on the other hand burning thousands of litres of petrol / diesel just for the fun of it.

It would be like complaining about smog whilst shovelling leaves onto a bonfire in the backyard. Or protesting about dams then going home to hose the driveway. You can't expect anyone doing such things to be taken as anything other than a comedian. 

As I've often said, if you want to stop AGW then all you need to do is stop polluting. If enough people agree then that fixes the problem. Thing is, there aren't too many people willing to stop polluting unless given no choice - that strongly suggests they're not losing too much sleep over the issue.


----------



## wayneL (8 August 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> Anyone even remotely concerned about the issue wouldn't want a boat or 4WD in the first place unless it's needed for income generation.
> 
> You can't expect me to take anyone too seriously if on one hand they run around shouting about AGW whilst on the other hand burning thousands of litres of petrol / diesel just for the fun of it.
> 
> ...



And I need not add anything to this eminently logical post.


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 August 2008)

wayneL said:


> Why would ***greenies(see below) take offence? In the context mentioned, it's probably true.
> 
> The word "greenie" has a shifting meaning according to context and there are various "levels" of "greeniness".
> 
> Some are anti any sort of development, as such, they probably to harbour a sort of hatred for humankind. Some are more pragmatic; some greenies might be OK with nuclear in favour of old coal technology. There is a spectrum of people in the green movement.



The world's first green political party was formed on an anti-hydro, pro-coal / oil platform and was not opposed to increased logging of forests or nuclear power. That's a fact and was well documented at the time.

The successor of that very same party now opposes nuclear, coal, oil and logging whilst having coined the term "clean, green hydro-electricity". They aren't keen on gas either.

Another fact is that one of the first energy-related environmental arguments on mainland Australia centred around oppositon to gas and arguing for brown coal as a better alternative. 

Now the general view is the exact opposite with the very same power station once championed as an example of what was good with calls to increase output now being subject to constant calls for closure whilst the one that was once so strongly opposed goes unnoticed.

Overall, the green view has pretty much changed 180 degrees on energy over the last 35 years.


----------



## wayneL (8 August 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> The world's first green political party was formed on an anti-hydro, pro-coal / oil platform and was not opposed to increased logging of forests or nuclear power. That's a fact and was well documented at the time.
> 
> The successor of that very same party now opposes nuclear, coal, oil and logging whilst having coined the term "clean, green hydro-electricity". They aren't keen on gas either.
> 
> ...




I just want take this opportunity to distance myself from "The Greens" or any party of like numpties. "Greenie" is now a poisoned term I suppose and I should get myself a different tag... along the lines of "sustainability" I suppose.

A Sustainabiltie?


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 August 2008)

wayneL said:


> I just want take this opportunity to distance myself from "The Greens" or any party of like numpties. "Greenie" is now a poisoned term I suppose and I should get myself a different tag... along the lines of "sustainability" I suppose.
> 
> A Sustainabiltie?



I've often said that "sustainable" and "green" are different things. The former means something that can continue at least for the foreseeable future (ideally forever) because it isn't using something up etc. The latter is a political movement like any other.


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 August 2008)

The Russians have nuclear powered icebreakers capable of breaking 3m deep ice, - in the course of doing hydrographic surveys of the arctic seabed - (never been able to be surveyed before) - and obviously in the course of going back -and-forwards (as they have to do in the hydrographic survey business) they would cut up the entire area of seaice.  

The diesel powered US breakers can only break 2m deep ice on a good day ( i;e; wait a few years) .

http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/promos/wirepicks/story/436604.html


http://www.bellona.org/articles/articles_2007/sevmorput_drilling

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/08/070823-arctic-oil.html



> Icebreakers become hot commodity in race for Arctic oil
> QUEENIE WONG; McClatchy Newspapers Published: August 7th, 2008 06:02 AM |
> 
> *A new cold war is breaking out in the race for Arctic oil, natural gas and minerals, and it involves front-line icebreakers. Russia has seven and the United States has three,* if   you count one that’s laid up in Seattle and won’t be seaworthy for a year.
> ...




That's it isn't it 
game over  - 

the oil companies are in there.  Watch the sudden "lobbyist - and political -pressure" now to deny the GW message


----------



## Pat (9 August 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> Anyone even remotely concerned about the issue wouldn't want a boat or 4WD in the first place unless it's needed for income generation.
> 
> You can't expect me to take anyone too seriously if on one hand they run around shouting about AGW whilst on the other hand burning thousands of litres of petrol / diesel just for the fun of it.
> 
> ...



I guess I disagree. I'm not complaining about GW, smog, flood or drought. Just saying its possible humans are contributing to GW, and if so, we should change a few things (It’s already begun). Just because I own a 4WD does not make it not so, nor does it make me a hypocrite. 

You're stereotyping 4WD's and their owners, I don't know any 4WDer who burns 1000's of litres just for the fun of it, in fact they use about the same/little more than a V6 Holden. I cannot say it is an environmentally friendly pastime, but can I make up for it elsewhere?

I do not see the logic Wayne sees. In making/asking millions of people (this could go into so many things, from motor racing to unnecessary air travel) give up their "fun" when the ACTUAL SOLUTIONS are far from the individual’s control. In time we shall have environmentally friendly transportation, manufacturing processes and such and such, then can we go back to towing our boats?

To be realistic, and significant change will take generations, for the moment we should keep on going the way where going. Our limited energy resources will be the reason for change. For the world to keep on turning, we'll have to go electric and hydrogen. I really don't care too much for rising sea levels, I’m a surfer , and it’s probably going to happen sooner or later.

Taking what I know into consideration, I'd like to see in the near future, some sort of global agreement passed. Where all new cars are hybrids. Maybe we can remove ourselves from this petro chemical addiction.


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 August 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> ..the oil companies are in there.  Watch the sudden "lobbyist - and political -pressure" now to deny the GW message



The Singers will start balling, and the Balls will start singing.. 

(Both Fred Singer and Tim Ball went into print defending the cigarette companies against the charge that there was a link between smoking and lung cancer   - now they are defending the role of the oil companies )

http://www.users.bigpond.com/smartboard/aginatur/swindle.htm
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_F._Ball


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 August 2008)

Pat said:


> I guess I disagree. I'm not complaining about GW, smog, flood or drought. Just saying its possible humans are contributing to GW, and if so, we should change a few things (It’s already begun). Just because I own a 4WD does not make it not so, nor does it make me a hypocrite.
> 
> You're stereotyping 4WD's and their owners, I don't know any 4WDer who burns 1000's of litres just for the fun of it, in fact they use about the same/little more than a V6 Holden. I cannot say it is an environmentally friendly pastime, but can I make up for it elsewhere?
> 
> ...



I only mentioned 4WD's because someone else mentioned it. I could have said large houses, big TV's, recreational travel, posting on an internet forum or ANYTHING else since everything we do uses energy somehow.

I was actually thinking of the boat more than the 4WD though and had this example in mind. I know someone who went "fishing" (not that they'll likely catch too many fish - it's more of a party trip) today on a boat. They told me it'll cost $140 for diesel to run the boat and there's 9 people. OK I thought, not too bad. Then they pointed out that was $140 each. Yep, a total of about 700 litres of diesel to catch a dozen fish. Add to that they'll all be travelling (separately I assume) an average 100km or so round trip to get to the boat. Another 150 or so litres of petrol given most of them have fairly large vehicles. 

That's a rather energy intensive form of recreation - 100 litres per person for a day's fun. I'm not against it, but it wouldn't stack up if I hear him saying something about cutting CO2 emissions, now would it? 

Anyone can choose to spend an extra $20,000 on an expensive car and an extra $1000 a year in fuel to run it compared to a cheaper car. Or they can choose to spend just $2000, once, to go solar for hot water and save maybe $250 a year in the process. That most chose the car (or some other form of consumption) speaks volumes in my opinion - they're not concerned enough abuot AGW to spend even a small amount of their own money, which they'll get back eventually anyway, to make a substantial cut in their own emissions. Money talks and it says the concern is superficial at best - we want something done but not if it means even the slightest dent in living standards. 

As for the bigger picture, I just don't believe we're actually going to do anything much about CO2 while we've still got fuel to burn. I'm convinced that for the next 40 years at least, we'll burn everything we can get our hands on. And that's going to be rather a lot.

Realistically, I think as a country we ought to be planning to adapt to the effects of it rather than trying to stop it. When you realise that even many countries bound by Kyoto are now busily building massive coal-fired power plants, you realise how futile it is to be saving a few kg of CO2 here and there catching the bus to work, taking short showers or turning the heating to an uncomfortably low setting. At best it's a slight change that is little more than a rounding error whilst total emissions continue to rise.

This explains much of what I've posted on the subject over the course of this thread. I'm not convinced either way on the science but I am convinced the climate is changing - only question is if it's natural or man-made. But either way I don't see humans doing anything significant to alter the course we're on now even if we find outright proof that humans are the cause.

10 years time I doubt we'll be hearing much about this one. It will either be proven or disproven and if it's real it will be accepted as inevitable. Oil shortage will be the dominant theme by then in the same way CO2 is now. Every comment from every politician, every corporation and so on will relate not to CO2 but to oil. 20 years after that it will be natural gas.


----------



## metric (15 August 2008)

BBC reports on Global Dimming - What is it? And what could be causing it? *
Wise Up Journal
13.08.2008
by Gabriel O’Hara

BBC confirms global dimming but promotes a false reason for it occurring:

BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_prog_summary.shtml

We are all seeing rather less of the Sun. Scientists looking at five decades of sunlight measurements have reached the disturbing conclusion that the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth’s surface has been gradually falling.

The effect was first spotted by Gerry Stanhill, an English scientist working in Israel. Comparing Israeli sunlight records from the 1950s with current ones, Stanhill was astonished to find a large fall in solar radiation. “There was a staggering 22% drop in the sunlight, and that really amazed me,” he says.

Intrigued, he searched out records from all around the world, and found the same story almost everywhere he looked, with sunlight falling by 10% over the USA, nearly 30% in parts of the former Soviet Union, and even by 16% in parts of the British Isles. Although the effect varied greatly from place to place, overall the decline amounted to 1-2% globally per decade between the 1950s and the 1990s.

Gerry called the phenomenon global dimming, but his research, published in 2001, met with a skeptical response from other scientists. It was only recently, when his conclusions were confirmed by Australian scientists using a completely different method to estimate solar radiation, that climate scientists at last woke up to the reality of global dimming.

Scientists are now worried that dimming, by shielding the oceans from the full power of the Sun, may be disrupting the pattern of the world’s rainfall.

Dimming appears to be caused by air pollution. Burning coal, oil and wood, whether in cars, power stations or cooking fires[…]

BBC jumps on the blame everything on industrial society band wagon by suggesting this recent problem of global dimming “appears” (possibly, maybe…) to be caused by the ordinary industrial man’s life style. Cloud Seeding is not mentioned which has been used for decades and is being used during the Beijing Olympics to control the weather as CNN states, “China now boasts it is the world’s leading rainmaker. It has created enough rain during the past five years to fill the Yellow River, the nation’s second largest, four times over. And if all goes to plan, none of it will be falling when the Olympics will be held.”

Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_seeding

“Cloud seeding, a form of weather modification, is the attempt to change the amount or type of precipitation that falls from clouds, by dispersing substances into the air that serve as cloud condensation or ice nuclei, which alter the microphysical processes within the cloud. The usual intent is to increase precipitation (rain or snow), but hail and fog suppression are also widely practiced in airports.”

The BBC did not consider Cloud Seeding despite public knowledge of it through TV documentaries. Reports from main stream media on covert Cloud Seeding has appeared recently, such as the German TV news clip below which caught the German military 
http://www.wiseupjournal.com/?p=462


----------



## jonojpsg (15 August 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> I only mentioned 4WD's because someone else mentioned it. I could have said large houses, big TV's, recreational travel, posting on an internet forum or ANYTHING else since everything we do uses energy somehow.
> 
> I was actually thinking of the boat more than the 4WD though and had this example in mind. I know someone who went "fishing" (not that they'll likely catch too many fish - it's more of a party trip) today on a boat. They told me it'll cost $140 for diesel to run the boat and there's 9 people. OK I thought, not too bad. Then they pointed out that was $140 each. Yep, a total of about 700 litres of diesel to catch a dozen fish. Add to that they'll all be travelling (separately I assume) an average 100km or so round trip to get to the boat. Another 150 or so litres of petrol given most of them have fairly large vehicles.
> 
> ...




Oh wow that's scary!  Adapt to the effects of it rather than trying to do something about it 

What happens when Greenland ice sheet goes or West Antarctic??  I've been talking and thinking about this a bit over the last few weeks and it's hard to imagine what life would be like if sea level rose by 6 metres.  Think about how much of your local area would go under if that happened?  Think about what major infrastructure would go under?  If that happens I don't think there is any way that we could justify continuing to burn fossil fuels.  The price for continuing to do so would be to risk East Antarctica going as well which would mean 60m sea level rise!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I agree unfortunately though that we are likely to keep on burning fossil fuels for as long as we can access them cheaply, but it doesn't have to be that way.  I think if we go hard with renewables/nuclear/hydrogen that we could replace fossil fuels within thirty years.  It just takes some major political will to bite the bullet and say we're going to do it.


----------



## Happy (15 August 2008)

metric said:


> BBC reports on Global Dimming - What is it? And what could be causing it? *
> Wise Up Journal
> 13.08.2008
> by Gabriel O’Hara
> ...





Luckily carbon trading money might help fight global cooling as well as global warming.


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 August 2008)

jonojpsg said:


> Oh wow that's scary!  Adapt to the effects of it rather than trying to do something about it



I see it as being like what you do if there's a major fire in your area. Sure, we could send in an army of trucks and 500 firefighters plus a few water bombing helicopters to get the situation under control and save property from destruction. 

But if that's not actually happening and your house isn't prepared for fire then the only rational choice is for you to get out of the place any way you can and save your life whilst accepting the likely loss of your home as inevitable.

From Australia's perspective, we alone can not cut CO2 emissions anywhere near enough to make a difference. Even the US can't really cut enough to make more than a modest dent in the total. So if the rest of the world is (in total) increasing emissions then we're stuck with the consequences no matter what they are.


----------



## Wysiwyg (17 August 2008)

60 minutes has a program on tonight which might throw some light on the subject.


----------



## nioka (17 August 2008)

Global cooling. This winter has been the coldest I have experienced for this area. 3 frosts this week when we normally would not have any at all and certainly not any in August. Makes one wonder. Sea temp a lot lower than I would have expected, spoiling the fishing and making gardening harder. ?????


----------



## Fleeta (18 August 2008)

'As for the bigger picture, I just don't believe we're actually going to do anything much about CO2 while we've still got fuel to burn. I'm convinced that for the next 40 years at least, we'll burn everything we can get our hands on. And that's going to be rather a lot.'

There is actually 500 YEARS of brown coal supply in the Latrobe Valley in Victoria. As Kevin Rudd said on 60 minutes last night - our effort to cut emissions will purely be on clean coal technology.

Whatever happened to reducing electricity usage as a measure of cutting emissions??

After watching 60 minutes last night, and from what i've heard from statistical analysis - there is a fair bit of evidence that we are within the standard deviations of temparature movement and there is no such thing as global warming. On the flip side is it worth risking this to be the case and ignoring emissions? Probably not...


----------



## nioka (18 August 2008)

Fleeta said:


> '
> There is actually 500 YEARS of brown coal supply in the Latrobe Valley in Victoria. As Kevin Rudd said on 60 minutes last night - our effort to cut emissions will purely be on clean coal technology.
> .



 ESI have technology that will improve the brown caol to a point where it will be superior to the black coal. ESI should be in a great position to benefit from the present government's policies regarding CO2 emissions and clean coal technology. That is the reason why I continue to hold ESI but for some reason it doesn't seem to rate high in the popularity stakes. Maybe the power station using the brown coal is waiting for the government to pay for the cost of using the process.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 August 2008)

Fleeta said:


> Whatever happened to reducing electricity usage as a measure of cutting emissions??



That idea has died down since a few more people started to realise what engineers have been screaming about all these years. The economy is electric. 

You want to use less power? Then beyond a few percent you need to have less economy. Society just isn't ready for that one yet.


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 August 2008)

Fleeta said:


> 1. As for the bigger picture, I just don't believe we're actually going to do anything much about CO2 while we've still got fuel to burn. I'm convinced that for the next 40 years at least, we'll burn everything we can get our hands on. And that's going to be rather a lot.'
> 
> ....
> 2. After watching 60 minutes last night, and from what i've heard from statistical analysis - there is a fair bit of evidence that we are within the standard deviations of temparature movement
> ...



1. Then again Fleeta, (as someone said the other day), man didn't stop throwing rocks at each other because they ran out of rocks - they invented something better ( like the atom bomb for instance ) Let's assume we invent something better for energy generation,  nuclear for ploughshares  instead of for swords etc.

2. "we are within the standard deviations" - yeah lol but how many.  i.e. if we are outside 1.65 standard deviations and within 1.70, (example), then we are still 95% confident of being right.   (I think IPCC prefer to talk 90% confidence limits btw - depending on which comment is being discussed). 

3. most nobel prise winning scientists would disagree with you   but...

4. bottom line, I agree with your conclusion in any case.  (as should everyone surely, even the sceptics. )


----------



## wayneL (19 August 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> 2. "we are within the standard deviations" - yeah lol but how many.  i.e. if we are outside 1.65 standard deviations and within 1.70, (example), then we are still 95% confident of being right.   (I think IPCC prefer to talk 90% confidence limits btw - depending on which comment is being discussed).



I think I've already destroyed the st. dev. argument... meaningless. As far as IPCC confidence... folks shouldn't trust gravy trains in motion.



2020hindsight said:


> 3. most nobel prise winning scientists would disagree with you   but...



When (mispelt) platitudes are resorted to, we know the science is in trouble; as indeed it is.



2020hindsight said:


> 4. bottom line, I agree with your conclusion in any case.  (as should everyone surely, even the sceptics. )



I don't know about sceptics, but some skeptics might.


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 August 2008)

wayneL said:


> 1. I think I've already destroyed the st. dev. argument... meaningless.
> 
> .2 I don't know about sceptics, but some skeptics might.



1. please explain 

PS is that the same post where you destroyed any argument that icecaps and polar bears weren't at risk etc ? 

2. so you say that "sceptics" is wrong? - or just not YOUR preferred spelling?


----------



## Aussiejeff (19 August 2008)

Happy said:


> Luckily carbon trading money might help fight global cooling as well as global warming.




On the other hand, "carbon trading money" might "un-luckily" make the filthy rich richer and the desperately poor poorer - without having any significant effect in fighting global cooling or warming..... 

Personally, I tend toward the latter viewpoint.


----------



## wayneL (19 August 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> 1. please explain



 Now you're Pauline Hanson? 



2020hindsight said:


> PS is that the same post where you destroyed any argument that icecaps and polar bears weren't at risk etc ?



No they were different destructions.



2020hindsight said:


> 2. so you say that "sceptics" is wrong? - or just not YOUR preferred spelling?



You don't do irony?

Well I suppose those without the faculty of investigative logic, would miss that one.


----------



## 2020hindsight (19 August 2008)

wayneL said:


> Now you're Pauline Hanson?
> 
> No they were different destructions.
> 
> ...



whatever.  

speaking of investigative logic, I'll accept your position as given in your first post (#22) ...   at least you are (or were then, whatever) in favour of action (I think) 



wayneL said:


> Well let's reduce CO2. As others have said, the risk is not worth taking by not doing something. I'm a skeptic over the anthropomorphic bit of GW, nevertheless I'm doing all I can reasonably do and still live in a society.


----------



## Happy (19 August 2008)

I would love to see some insulation improvements in building code.

It is not that long ago that roof insulation was optional in ACT region.

Next step? Double-glazed or even triple-glazed windows, maybe with non-metal frames.

Maybe water ponds specifically designed for heat collection in winter during sunny day and heat loss at night during summer.

Compulsory awnings and many more simple changes that make big difference.


----------



## wayneL (19 August 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> whatever.
> 
> speaking of investigative logic, I'll accept your position as given in your first post (#22) ...   at least you are (or were then, whatever) in favour of action (I think)



My view has always been action on general pollution and environmental degradation, which will do more for the planet than freaking over co2.

How many times must I repeat that?


----------



## nioka (19 August 2008)

Could someone please send me a little of that surplus global warming. It is a very cold day here again today (for this area which boasts nice winters). There was a news item saying this month is the coldest on record.  With electric heaters going full bore I'll need to plant a few more trees next week to lighten up my carbon footprint.


----------



## Julia (19 August 2008)

Aussiejeff said:


> On the other hand, "carbon trading money" might "un-luckily" make the filthy rich richer and the desperately poor poorer - without having any significant effect in fighting global cooling or warming.....
> 
> Personally, I tend toward the latter viewpoint.



I agree, AJ.   many people are already living below the poverty line now, e.g. old people not turning on heaters because they simply can't afford to pay the power bill.  This is really happening.  We should be so ashamed.  And Mr Rudd is going to make it worse for these people.


----------



## Julia (19 August 2008)

nioka said:


> Could someone please send me a little of that surplus global warming. It is a very cold day here again today (for this area which boasts nice winters). There was a news item saying this month is the coldest on record.  With electric heaters going full bore I'll need to plant a few more trees next week to lighten up my carbon footprint.



And when you've had what you need of that global warming, Nioka, could you send the remainder up to Qld where also it has been unbelievably cold in the last couple of weeks.  Almost every morning down to 3 or 4 degrees, and zero once!  So much for the subtropics.


----------



## wayneL (19 August 2008)

Julia said:


> I agree, AJ.   many people are already living below the poverty line now, e.g. old people not turning on heaters because they simply can't afford to pay the power bill.  This is really happening.  We should be so ashamed.  And Mr Rudd is going to make it worse for these people.




Julia,

It's interesting that those on the conservative side of politics are charged with social Darwinism, yet it's the Labo(u)r party that usually actually practices it.

The Labour party here is screwing over the virtuous poor big-time, in favour of the middle/upper middle classes (who just coincidently happen to be the swinging voters).

It's the conservatives who seem to "have a heart" these days who seem to at least spare a thought for the poor in their pork barreling exercises.

Hmmmmm.


----------



## derty (19 August 2008)

It's funny that people are saying their their winter have been exceptionally cold this year. Out in here in Kalgoorlie it has been the opposite. A very dry winter so far and warm. I have only used a little over 1 load of wood so far (usually 3-4), didn't light the fire until 2nd week of June and haven't had it lit for at least a week now (probably should have lit it last night though ). The deciduous tree in the back yard didn't lose it's leaves until mid June and already some of the wattles in the area are in flower. 

Hopefully the summer will be as mild as the winter was.


----------



## Aussiejeff (20 August 2008)

derty said:


> It's funny that people are saying their their winter have been exceptionally cold this year. Out in here in Kalgoorlie it has been the opposite. A very dry winter so far and warm. I have only used a little over 1 load of wood so far (usually 3-4), didn't light the fire until 2nd week of June and haven't had it lit for at least a week now (probably should have lit it last night though ). The deciduous tree in the back yard didn't lose it's leaves until mid June and already some of the wattles in the area are in flower.
> 
> Hopefully the summer will be as mild as the winter was.




Shame on you Mr Derty Sandgroper for daring to be *different* to Eastern Staters! Why don't you just take a big mining pick and carve off WA, to set sail into the setting sun and leave us poor Croweaters, Cockroaches, Banana-Benders and Mexicans to bask in our misery?






aj


----------



## Calliope (20 August 2008)

Where I live it has been the coldest winter in my memory. If I had to pick between global warming and global cooling I would take the former. A lot of Southeners migrate to Southern Queensland and most of them are seeking the warmth. You rarely see Northern Australians coming south for the cold.


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 August 2008)

A bit of warming would have been nice this winter. I've lost count of the number of times the car's been iced up in the morning. One day was so bad the whole place looked like it was covered in snow - but it was just frost.

Needless to say this is getting rather expensive in terms of heating. About 2.5 tonnes of wood used so far this year and still lighting the fire every day. And that's just to supplement the 6.4 MWh of electricity I've used just to run the electric heater (separate meter so the figure is spot on). That's about $1000 worth of heating since the beginning of the year and still counting. Thankfully it does seem to be getting slightly warmer now.

Still not raining much though. A bit lately but that's been the pattern - normal rain for a couple of weeks then back to the decade long drought.


----------



## Julia (20 August 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> A bit of warming would have been nice this winter. I've lost count of the number of times the car's been iced up in the morning. One day was so bad the whole place looked like it was covered in snow - but it was just frost.
> 
> Needless to say this is getting rather expensive in terms of heating. About 2.5 tonnes of wood used so far this year and still lighting the fire every day. And that's just to supplement the 6.4 MWh of electricity I've used just to run the electric heater (separate meter so the figure is spot on). That's about $1000 worth of heating since the beginning of the year and still counting. Thankfully it does seem to be getting slightly warmer now.
> 
> Still not raining much though. A bit lately but that's been the pattern - normal rain for a couple of weeks then back to the decade long drought.



Your post brings unpleasant reminders of winters in Christchurch, Smurf.
Perhaps you might be consoled a little to know that up here in Qld, four hours north of Brisbane we have had an overnight temp of zero, and every night in the last fortnight has been down to 3 or 4 degrees!
So, no, I hardly think we are experiencing global ****** warming!


----------



## Calliope (24 August 2008)

There have been very few posts on this thread recently on the Emissions Trading Scheme and yet the ETS is the Rudd government"s response to the global warming debate. Paul Kelly said in The Australian on Saturday "Any Australian climate change policy that seriously damaged our economy would be seen as a global and domestic failure, not a success." 

Most contributors to Aussie Stock Forums, I imagine, couple the success of Australia's economy and our own future wellbeing to the success of our resources boom. Any down turn in energy and commodity prices recently has resulted in a downturn in the market. We should be fearful of any scenario which could put our extractive and export industries at risk.

And yet the Government must pander to five Green senators to have any chance of getting any legislation through the upper house. The Greens avowed policy is to bring the resources boom to its knees. They are opposed to the mining of coal in any form. They would close down the export of coal. The would stop coal-fired electrictity generation. They airily dismiss the spectre of thousand of workers being thrown out of jobs, by saying they could get jobs in renewable energy industries. The are not too keen on gas either even with its lower CO2 emissions.

How the government navigates its ETS program through the minefield between the realists and  and the idealistic Greens will determine our future wellbeing.


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 August 2008)

Calliope said:


> The Greens avowed policy is to bring the resources boom to its knees. They are opposed to the mining of coal in any form. They would close down the export of coal. The would stop *coal-fired *electrictity generation. They airily dismiss the spectre of thousand of workers being thrown out of jobs...



If we'd built / scrapped every specific project that environmentalists have wanted / opposed with energy over the past 40 years then we'd have less renewable energy, less gas-fired power, Loy Yang brown coal power station would be one third larger and Tassie would have a coal-fired plant and a mine in the middle of a National Park.

No, that's not some engineer's wet dream or the plans of some power company. It's the sum total of what environmentalists have asked for in relation to electricity generation. Hence why I'm not too keen on them.


----------



## Calliope (25 August 2008)

Following Qld Premier Bligh's decision to pander to the environmentalists and ban any new shale oil mines in the state, Greenpeace climate campaigner John Hepburn wants more. He said "soon she is going to have to make the tough decision to put the future of the state ahead of the vested interests of the coal lobby." He could have added... and ahead of the interests of those working in the coal mining and power industries. It is easy for pampered Greenspeace campaigners to put their selfish, holier than thou, interests ahead of the interests of working families. After all they are members of a very rich organisation which is funded by weathy organisations which have made their millions by ravaging the earth's resources in the past and are now seeking absolution.


----------



## jonojpsg (25 August 2008)

Regarding the cold weather at the moment, this has been a cold year,  but from what I've read it is due mainly to a strong La Nina pattern being established which has a major cooling effect on the Pacific coast?

Still strongly in uptrend though when you look at moving averages over last thirty years.  Actually its interesting that the sort of chart analysis that we do with shares isn't applied to global warming?  If we take the same approach, then long term trend is up similar to sharemarket over last twenty years.  The weather (global av temp) is obviously being dragged down by the big bad BEAR  but will resume its upward march eventually IMO


----------



## Pat (8 September 2008)

A most interesting article...
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/09/soil/mann-text

Could kill a few birds with one stone...



> A black revolution might even help combat global warming. Agriculture accounts for more than one-eighth of humankind's production of greenhouse gases. Heavily plowed soil releases carbon dioxide as it exposes once buried organic matter. Sombroek argued that creating terra preta around the world would use so much carbon-rich charcoal that it could more than offset the release of soil carbon into the atmosphere. According to William I. Woods, a geographer and soil scientist at the University of Kansas, charcoal-rich terra preta has 10 or 20 times more carbon than typical tropical soils, and the carbon can be buried much deeper down. Rough calculations show that "the amount of carbon we can put into the soil is staggering," Woods says. Last year Cornell University soil scientist Johannes Lehmann estimated in Nature that simply converting residues from commercial forestry, fallow farm fields, and annual crops to charcoal could compensate for about a third of U.S. fossil-fuel emissions. Indeed, Lehmann and two colleagues have argued that humankind's use of fossil fuels worldwide could be wholly offset by storing carbon in terra preta nova.


----------



## Julia (8 September 2008)

Well, folks, enjoy your meat eating while you can.  I heard a climate change enthusiast this morning advise that cows produce so much greenhouse gas that they are a decided hazard.  He thought we should all become vegetarians.

We might as well just all stop breathing.  That might save the planet.


----------



## Pat (8 September 2008)

Julia said:


> Well, folks, enjoy your meat eating while you can.  I heard a climate change enthusiast this morning advise that cows produce so much greenhouse gas that they are a decided hazard.  He thought we should all become vegetarians.
> 
> We might as well just all stop breathing.  That might save the planet.



I think a little improvement in 'green' energies here and there would suffice. No need to go to extremes. :
And... putting them into practice, eg. electric cars


----------



## wayneL (9 September 2008)

Julia said:


> Well, folks, enjoy your meat eating while you can.  I heard a climate change enthusiast this morning advise that cows produce so much greenhouse gas that they are a decided hazard.  He thought we should all become vegetarians.
> 
> We might as well just all stop breathing.  That might save the planet.




Actually the animals that creates the most methane by a LoOOOOOng way are...





















...ants!

Let's kill all ants, we'll all be saved!


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 September 2008)

wayne,
But you're still in favour of action right ?  (option c above)?


----------



## --B-- (9 September 2008)

Julia said:


> Well, folks, enjoy your meat eating while you can.  I heard a climate change enthusiast this morning advise that cows produce so much greenhouse gas that they are a decided hazard.  He thought we should all become vegetarians.
> 
> We might as well just all stop breathing.  That might save the planet.




the funny / scary thing is that some on the green brigade would actually advocate a return to living in straw huts and burning brush fires for warmth while eating leaves and berries.

it just goes to show how truly nutty these greenies are.


----------



## Aussiejeff (9 September 2008)

--B-- said:


> the funny / scary thing is that some on the green brigade would actually advocate a return to living in straw huts and burning brush fires for warmth while eating leaves and berries.
> 
> it just goes to show how truly *nutty* these *greenies* are.




Nuts and greens???

Mmmm-mmm!! Health food!!!

Yummmm!


----------



## wayneL (9 September 2008)

Aussiejeff said:


> Nuts and greens???
> 
> Mmmm-mmm!! Health food!!!
> 
> Yummmm!




I reckon wombats have the idea - eats roots shoots and leaves.

(Comma placement at your discretion )


----------



## Calliope (9 September 2008)

Wayne I like the idea that ants are the problem. So does my termite eradicator. He is not only saving houses he is saving the world.


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 September 2008)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/09/2359058.htm



> David Karoly is a Professor of Meteorology at Melbourne University and was a lead author on the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's fourth report.
> 
> He says Professor Garnaut's proposed emissions cuts of 10 per cent by 2020 is not enough to minimise the dangerous effects of climate change on Australia and the rest of the world.
> 
> ...




Dear Prof Karoly and Prof Garnaut
When you say "taking an approach which is politically and economically palatable or acceptable" - are you taking into account those diehards amongst us who won't be happy unless and until they see us charging leming-like to the cliff edge and jumping off?


----------



## --B-- (9 September 2008)

> He says Professor Garnaut's proposed emissions cuts of 10 per cent by 2020 is not enough to minimise the dangerous effects of climate change on Australia and the rest of the world.



Dear Prof Karoly,

by how many degrees will Australia's ETS reduce temperatures by? (do you know 2020?? ive yet to meet anyone who can answer this)




			
				article said:
			
		

> Professor Karoly says Professor Garnaut's approach to cutting Australia's emissions is too conservative and sends the wrong message to the rest of the world about Australia's intentions on climate change.




Dear Karoly,

the rest of the world doesnt care one iota what ausrtralia does in this regard.


----------



## Pat (9 September 2008)

--B-- said:


> Dear Karoly,
> 
> the rest of the world doesnt care one iota what ausrtralia does in this regard.



You mean you don't care...




This thread reinforces the fact, most 'old' dogs can't be taught new tricks. (Not saying anyone is old) :

It is sad to see peeps are not taking advantage of this GW fact/myth. As I have posted before it is and excellent opportunity for change.

Regardless of GW, any positive change for the environment will cost *everyone shyte loads of money, convenience and time.* 

Mocking every article and the people who want to actually see, and are prepared to sacrifice change is ridiculous. 
The future population will one day them for there concern... and action.


----------



## --B-- (9 September 2008)

Pat said:


> You mean you don't care.




no pat. i mean the US, China and India dont give a damn. To think our decision to screw our economy in the name of unproven science will entice those countries to follow is absolutely ridiculous.



> It is sad to see peeps are not taking advantage of this GW fact/myth. As I have posted before it is and excellent opportunity for change.
> 
> Regardless of GW, any positive change for the environment will cost *everyone shyte loads of money, convenience and time.*



regardless of it being a myth?? 

excuse me for being concerned about inflicting an ETS on our economy for absolutely no purpose. im quite concerned that this is indeed the thinking behind many of the "well it cant be a bad thing" arguments,, - when actually it can be quite a bad thing.

i dont think many will argue against any 'positive' for the environment Pat. just not on the basis of greeny lies nad just not at the expense of our economy.



> Mocking every article and the people who want to actually see, and are prepared to sacrifice change is ridiculous.
> The future population will one day them for there concern... and action.



so by how much is our ETS is supposed to reduce temperatures by Pat?


----------



## Pat (9 September 2008)

--B-- said:


> no pat. i mean the US, China and India dont give a damn. To think our decision to screw our economy in the name of unproven science will entice those countries to follow is absolutely ridiculous.



We lead by example. Is this an excuse not to change to greener ways?... because others don't give damn? Maybe they do --B--, Perhaps it will work, then we (Australia) will be the example to follow.



--B-- said:


> regardless of it being a myth??
> 
> excuse me for being concerned about inflicting an ETS on our economy for absolutely no purpose. im quite concerned that this is indeed the thinking behind many of the "well it cant be a bad thing" arguments,, - when actually it can be quite a bad thing.



Thats more than fair enough, change must be done in a sustainable way... The key here is change, not much going by the way of change eh? All because of money... Thats why we don't have electric cars. 



--B-- said:


> just not on the basis of greeny lies nad just not at the expense of our economy.



EXACTLY!!!  I don't think we'll ruin too much, but then again, there's that sacrifice we all must make. Greenie lies is the excuse, what ever the reason... there will be an excuse.



--B-- said:


> so by how much is our ETS is supposed to reduce temperatures by Pat?



Not sure, I'm not a scientist.... yet. With 6 yrs and some hard study while working I will be 
However I'm of the thinking we can't stop/reverse CC. Perhaps slow the change down.
Either way, thats not my point. 
How are we going to make this a better, cleaner, more efficient society if we keep saying we can't afford to?


----------



## --B-- (9 September 2008)

Pat said:


> We lead by example. Is this an excuse not to change to greener ways?... because others don't give damn?




if its a valid reason then of course not. my point was in response to the comments made in the article above regarding Australia sending a message to the rest of the world. its absolutely preposterous.




> EXACTLY!!!  I don't think we'll ruin too much, but then again, there's that sacrifice we all must make.




"must" is the key word there Pat. thats why this debate is so interesting and is still raging on. 


> Not sure, I'm not a scientist....




because the answer, as any scientist will tell you, is ZERO.

the fact that Rudd and co continue to comment on hos 'we must do this to save the reef' etc is simply misleading and is what gets the average punter full of fear and preparedness to put their financial well being on the line. 

i quote Rudd himself:

"and kakadu... no more kakadu..." 

this comment is simply astounding, it is simply untrue, and yet im sure many were shaking in their boots when they heard their PM mutter the words.



> How are we going to make this a better, cleaner, more efficient society if we keep saying we can't afford to?




this can all be done without the "we must act now or perish" lies being perpetrated by the misleading green agenda.


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 September 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/09/2359058.htm
> Dear Prof Karoly and Prof Garnaut
> When you say "taking an approach which is politically and economically palatable or acceptable" - are you taking into account those diehards amongst us ....



ok -B- you're proving the point though. 

No matter how much they water it down, to the point where there is no pain, and likewise no gain, ;  

to the point where we miss the millions of opportunities out there to innovate and sell renewable energy techniques to the world, and / or clean up existing energy (where Arnie Schwarz is miles ahead of us) ...

no matter how much they do so ... some will still complain.


----------



## wayneL (9 September 2008)

The only thing that will reduce emissions is a depression... and we gotta knock off those ants!</irony> 

Anyway, when Yellowstone blows, we go into a mini ice age.


----------



## Julia (9 September 2008)

This thread is similar to the one on Religion.  Either you believe or you don't.
However, with the religion thing, the beliefs make no ultimate difference to the economy.   But with the religion of climate change fanatics, nothing will make them happy until an ETS is at the level where it completely wrecks the economy.


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 September 2008)

Julia
even wayne believes we should act


----------



## wayneL (9 September 2008)

Julia said:


> This thread is similar to the one on Religion.  Either you believe or you don't.
> However, with the religion thing, the beliefs make no ultimate difference to the economy.   But with the religion of climate change fanatics, nothing will make them happy until an ETS is at the level where it completely wrecks the economy.




And China takes over the world


----------



## wayneL (9 September 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Julia
> even wayne believes we should act



On pollution, not particularly carbon.


----------



## 2020hindsight (9 September 2008)

post #22 wayne - you wonder why I'm confused with your position on all this ... 



wayneL said:


> *Well let's reduce CO2. As others have said, the risk is not worth taking by not doing something. *I'm a skeptic over the anthropomorphic bit of GW, nevertheless I'm doing all I can reasonably do and still live in a society... much more than those bleating on about it.
> 
> My focus is on pollution. By focussing solely on co2, folks are missing the bigger picture of pollution in general. I don't know whether we are heating up the planet, but I know we are raping, pillaging and poisoning it. If we're not careful the planet will *not* heat up, but will still end up uninhabitable.
> 
> A bigger picture is needed IMO.


----------



## Julia (9 September 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> post #22 wayne - you wonder why I'm confused with your position on all this ...



What is the source of your confusion here, 2020?   The quote you have just posted from Wayne echoes his earlier comment where he points out his concern is more with pollution than Co2.


----------



## wayneL (9 September 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> post #22 wayne - you wonder why I'm confused with your position on all this ...



You will find heaps of my views have changed over time. I don't stubbornly hold to any position.

I admit to have slightly succumbed to the fear tactics of the AGW gravy train. Now I know more and am no longer concerned about co2.


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 September 2008)

I'd have a lot more confidence in the whole thing if natural gas was specifically excluded as a means of reducing emissions. With the peak oil situation, we'll need all the gas we can get for transport. Phase out gas-fired power, don't increase it.

If we go down the gas track then what happens in 20 years when we're stuck with predominantly gas-fired power, peak gas and haven't developed a large renewables industry because gas was easier? Answer - we do just what every other country facing declining gas production has done, go straight back to coal.

And what the hell do we do for transport once we've got rid of all the gas? Electric heavy trucks won't be here anytime soon.

The other great danger is geopolitical. Russian and Middle East dominance of gas reserves makes Iraq's oil seem trivial. Now think about that for a moment. A developed world dependent not only on Middle East oil for transport, but on declining supplies of oil & gas for electric power and industry as well. 

It's a frightening scenario when you think about it. Energy has long lead to conflict of various sorts and with so few holding ALL the cards it just doesn't bear thinking about. They're already signalling their intentions pretty loudly in my view and we'd be outright fools to take the bait.


----------



## Pat (9 September 2008)

--B-- said:


> if its a valid reason then of course not. my point was in response to the comments made in the article above regarding Australia sending a message to the rest of the world. its absolutely preposterous.



Fair enough, but I believe all this... call it crap, that the govt is doing is all part of the change process. From the posts i've read (not neccesarily yours) these suggested changes are simply dismissed by some because we cannot prove humans are contributing to GW, or, we cannot prove GW. Perhaps specific regions are changing from warm to cold, as per Wayne's post a few pages back, but it would seem a larger number of regions are warming. The message is in the fact we are trying to change, and debating the fact. Any sustainable change will set an example, and the rest of the world will pay close attention.



--B-- said:


> "must" is the key word there Pat. thats why this debate is so interesting and is still raging on.



"Must" is just a play on words. Is there such thing as 'must' do something? I can safely say we must change our ways if we continue to live in a sustainable society. Seen the movie Water World?  



--B-- said:


> because the answer, as any scientist will tell you, is ZERO.



Not sure on this, any scientist will say it never too late.



--B-- said:


> this can all be done without the "we must act now or perish" lies being perpetrated by the misleading green agenda.



Agree, but It's politics, they're pushing a point.
How can they say it in a way that would make you feel different on the subject?


----------



## Pat (9 September 2008)

Julia said:


> This thread is similar to the one on Religion.  Either you believe or you don't.
> However, with the religion thing, the beliefs make no ultimate difference to the economy.   But with the religion of climate change fanatics, nothing will make them happy until an ETS is at the level where it completely wrecks the economy.



Julia, I don't think you need to be a 'fanatic' to agree with the possibility of AGW. Nor do I think you need to be a 'fanatic' to see that the required changes to solve the 'possible' issues are all needed for the future of civilization. We don't need to stuff the economy, we have had it too easy for too long, soon we will HAVE to step up and take it on the chin, not for rising sea levels, but an energy crisis. Imagine 8 billion people walking the earth in the next 20 yrs.

What's causing the warmer temperatures? Certainly there is an element of natural variability, but there is also a human contribution. If you disagree with this your either naive or ignorant.

What we do on our planet affects us, not the planet. So we may muck up the atmosphere for a few thousand years of global warming or so forth, this is actually just a little blip. However it is a very important blip to mankind, not to planetary evolution.

In the words of John Lennon (sorta) "All we are saying, is give GW a chance". LOL!


----------



## Pat (9 September 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> I'd have a lot more confidence in the whole thing if natural gas was specifically excluded as a means of reducing emissions. With the peak oil situation, we'll need all the gas we can get for transport. Phase out gas-fired power, don't increase it.
> 
> If we go down the gas track then what happens in 20 years when we're stuck with predominantly gas-fired power, peak gas and haven't developed a large renewables industry because gas was easier? Answer - we do just what every other country facing declining gas production has done, go straight back to coal.
> 
> ...



Good post Smurf, It's massaging my mind.
I for one would love to see the electric car make a come back. I truely believe that technology in electric motors would increase 10 fold due to the demand placed on an 'infant' industry. There is no hope for electric heavy transport without investing in light transport first. 

Though trains are electric, even the diesel kind. 


H2 cars are a silly silly idea IMO. H2 is harder to produce and much more scarce than oil/gas... for the time being. But the sun, well its everywhere. 
From what i've seen (on TV ) they have made some vast improvements on solar powered power stations. Apparently they need 1/5th of the govt land in Nevada USA to provide the whole country with solar energy. And they've seem to of solved the issue with no sun at night. Can't remember the name of the substance, but it retains heat around 500c for 36 hrs or so, only problem is if it cools below 250c it turns to a solid... Still, they are trying.


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 September 2008)

Pat said:


> Julia, I don't think you need to be a 'fanatic' to agree with the possibility of AGW. ... .



be aware Pat that Julia is prepared to argue some strange positions - 
 even when Wayne agrees that he has changed his mind on this, Julia thinks he hasn't. 



> "All we are saying, is give (action on)  GW a chance".



good one


----------



## ghotib (10 September 2008)

wayneL said:


> Actually the animals that creates the most methane by a LoOOOOOng way are...
> 
> ...ants!



Hi Wayne, 

Source please. 

I can find information online about methane emissions by termites, but not ants. The IPCC report says termites are the 2nd highest natural source of methane, and that total human activities (which include raising animals for meat) are a higher source than natural activities. "much" looks like about 50% higher from the graphics in the IPCC FAQ, which is all I've looked at since reading your post. There's a US EPA report online which says that termite emissions are 11% of natural sources, but doesn't put numbers on the ratio between natural and anthropogenic sources and only refers to the US anyway. 

FWIW, given that every nutritionist in the Western world seems to think Westerners eat too much meat, it probably wouldn't do us any harm at all to lose one meat meal a week and it would do us the world <ahem> of good if none of our meat was feedlot. 

Cheers, 

Ghoti

WHOOOP!!!! Hold everything. Just found a Wikipedia article which shows Termites as 3% and Ruminants as 19% of global Methane emission sources. The article cites one of the working papers for the 2001 IPCC report and is dated 1999. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane


----------



## Julia (10 September 2008)

Pat said:


> J
> What's causing the warmer temperatures? Certainly there is an element of natural variability, but there is also a human contribution. If you disagree with this your either naive or ignorant.




Pat, if you have evidence that climate change is anthropogenic, please post it.  

In the meantime, I simply disagree with your view.  

If I am therefore judged by you to be naive and ignorant, then I think I can live with that.
Might be good to argue the position with more clarity before resorting to personal insults.


----------



## wayneL (10 September 2008)

wayneL said:


> You will find heaps of my views have changed over time. I don't stubbornly hold to any position.
> 
> I admit to have slightly succumbed to the fear tactics of the AGW gravy train. Now I know more and am no longer concerned about co2.




Just to clarify: I've never "believed" in AGW but had a "just in case" attitude. Now I am convinced that there is minuscule anthropogenic influence in climatic variation.


----------



## wayneL (10 September 2008)

ghotib said:


> Hi Wayne,
> 
> Source please.



It was on the Beeb, which is well known as the accepted repository of all pedantry. 

But then again, the Beeb thinks Crash Gordon was a good Chancellor.


----------



## --B-- (10 September 2008)

Pat said:


> What's causing the warmer temperatures? Certainly there is an element of natural variability, but there is also a human contribution. If you disagree with this your either naive or ignorant.




Pat, youve admitted yourself youre not a scientist yet apparently youre that convined of AGW that anyone woh dare question it are naive or ignorant?

reminds me of the old "if you dont agree with me youre an idiot" line

perhaps you can say the same to these reputable scientists? 

_Dr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences--demolishes the famous “hockey stick” graph that launched the global warming panic. _
_ 
Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says “it’s hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now.” 

Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says “no major scientist with any long record in this field” accepts Al Gore’s claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases. 

Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states “there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies” used for global warming forecasts. 

Dr. Christopher Landsea--past chairman of the American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Tropical Meteorology and Tropical Cyclones--says “there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity.” 

Dr. Antonino Zichichi--one of the world’s foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models “incoherent and invalid.” 

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. “based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false.” 

Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--head of the Geological Museum, University of Oslo--says “most leading geologists” know the U.N.’s views “of Earth processes are implausible.” 

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the “1,000 Most Cited Scientists,” says much “Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change.” 

Dr. Claude Allegre--member, U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, he was among the first to sound the alarm on the dangers of global warming. His view now: “The cause of this climate change is unknown.” 

Dr. Richard Lindzen--Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists “are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn’t happen even if the models were right.” 

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science’s Pulkovo Observatory and of the International Space Station’s Astrometria project says “the common view that man’s industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations.” 

Dr. Richard Tol--Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit, and Adjunct Professor at the Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, at Carnegie Mellon University, calls the most influential global warming report of all time “preposterous . . . alarmist and incompetent.” 

Dr. Sami Solanki--director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, who argues that changes in the Sun’s state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming: “The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.” 

Prof. Freeman Dyson--one of the world’s most eminent physicists says the models used to justify global warming alarmism are “full of fudge factors” and “do not begin to describe the real world.” 

Dr. Eigils Friis-Christensen--director of the Danish National Space Centre, vice-president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, who argues that changes in the Sun’s behavior could account for most of the warming attributed by the UN to man-made CO2._ 

http://astore.amazon.com/global_warming_hoax-20/detail/0980076315/103-9600080-7374228


----------



## derty (10 September 2008)

wayneL said:


> Just to clarify: I've never "believed" in AGW but had a "just in case" attitude. Now I am convinced that there is minuscule anthropogenic influence in climatic variation.



So you are tentatively dipping your toe into the AGW bucket? Or do I read that wrong?


----------



## wayneL (10 September 2008)

derty said:


> So you are tentatively dipping your toe into the AGW bucket? Or do I read that wrong?



No

The IPCC model is completely unable to predict climate trends. Therefore, AGW does not even qualify as a theory and remains a hypothesis only.

Interestingly, the AGW sk(c)eptics have been more successful.

It should be a matter of disgust that this "hypothesis" is being regarded as fact. The IPCC and their disciples and believers are therefore analogous to young earth creationists.


----------



## --B-- (10 September 2008)

wayneL said:


> It should be a matter of disgust that this "hypothesis" is being regarded as fact. The IPCC and their disciples and believers are therefore analogous to young earth creationists.




100% agree and yet time and time again we hear horror stories of "the cost of not acting" which are based entirely on the IPCC's "models" worst case scenario of a 6 deg temp increase in 100 years.

if joe public took the time to consider the fact that these models are simply guestimates and in actual fact much remains unknown about our climate then perhaps we woulnt see so many jump so readily on the bandwagon.


----------



## --B-- (10 September 2008)

this from the head of the IPCC:



> Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the U.N. Panel that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, said he would look into the apparent temperature plateau so far this century.* "One would really have to see on the basis of some analysis what this really represents,*" he told Reuters, adding "are there natural factors compensating?" for increases in greenhouse gases from human activities.




http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/001320pachauri_on_recent_c.html

gee so the head of the whiz bang IPCC which basically drive the worlds fear of AGW doesnt understand what is happening with global temperatures?

shocking???


----------



## 2020hindsight (10 September 2008)

--B-- said:


> gee so the head of the whiz bang IPCC which basically drive the worlds fear of AGW doesnt understand what is happening with global temperatures?



on the contrary, he's saying there could be natural factors compensating.

eg the decline in solar activity.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation



> adding "are there natural factors compensating?" for increases in greenhouse gases from human activities




I'd like to say "Lets review this in 4 or 5 years."   Trouble is, you can't change your mind back again.   The cost of "not being cautious" goes up astronomically both in dollar terms, and also in tempting Fate and the Point-Of-No-(short-term-foreseeable)-Return.


----------



## Pat (10 September 2008)

Julia said:


> Pat, if you have evidence that climate change is anthropogenic, please post it.



Like wise for the debate against GW. It is illogical to simply dismiss the argument for lack of evidence.



Julia said:


> If I am therefore judged by you to be naive and ignorant, then I think I can live with that.
> Might be good to argue the position with more clarity before resorting to personal insults.



Only on the subject of GW. Please do not take offence. I meant it in the nicest possible way.


----------



## --B-- (10 September 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> on the contrary, he's saying there could be natural factors compensating.




exactly my point 2020. here is the guy who leads the IPCC, the supposed authority on climate and climate change, and it is clear for all to see that he cant explain the temperature plateau. obviously the 'models' were simply set for big scary increases and impending death? 

for goodness sake, this is an organisation wielding such an amount of power, whom governments all over the world are quoting for their own studies, if this organisation can predict climate 100 years into the future why on earth cant they explain what is happening right now??



> I'd like to say "Lets review this in 4 or 5 years."   Trouble is, you can't change your mind back again.   The cost of "not being cautious" goes up astronomically both in dollar terms, and also in tempting Fate and the Point-Of-No-(short-term-foreseeable)-Return.





oh of course.. that little gem.


----------



## Pat (10 September 2008)

--B-- said:


> Pat, youve admitted yourself youre not a scientist yet apparently youre that convined of AGW that anyone woh dare question it are naive or ignorant?



No you may question it as you like, this is human/scientific evolution... Though arguments for and against are most certainly logical in there own respects, some of the logic is flawed.
I believe to dismiss the possibility of AGW, and to suggest "some" action is not needed is naive and ignorant... The basis of most arguments against is money. Alas, I am posting on a stock forum .  LOL!

I for one am still not convinced we are causing it, but am convinced we are contributing to GW If only 1%. It is time for a green revolution, the sooner, and greener the better.
Humans have a large foot print on this planet, you name it we've stuffed it up, and small to extremely large eco-systems are absolutely f@#ked because of our senseless ways. Is it unfathomable to think we could take it to a global level?

Most solutions that have been put forward will solve many issues that face society and the environment today, not just potential climate warming. It is the implementation of the solutions that should be the focus of argument, "How can we do this in the most efficient way?" would be the ultimate question.

The fact is there will never be proof, we don't have another planet to compare, and our closed system is extremely dynamic. But again - Humans have the large foot print on this planet, you name it we've stuffed it up, small to extremely large eco-systems are absolutely f@#ked because of our senseless ways. In the last 50 yrs technology has advanced in ways that 100 yrs ago we could not comprehend, yet we are not using this technology in an efficient way.


----------



## Julia (10 September 2008)

Pat, the general tenor of your post (and I'm not talking about the actual argument for or against AGW in this case) is what annoys me and a lot of other people, i.e. the insistent, relentless self-flagellation thing that human beings are so careless and selfish.

Human beings have created much that is good, and are for the most part well intentioned.   I, for one, just decline to feel guilty about something which  quite possibly is happening as a normal part of the climate cycle, and I frankly object to other people telling me that I should.


----------



## Pat (10 September 2008)

Julia said:


> Pat, the general tenor of your post (and I'm not talking about the actual argument for or against AGW in this case) is what annoys me and a lot of other people, i.e. the insistent, relentless self-flagellation thing that human beings are so careless and selfish.
> 
> Human beings have created much that is good, and are for the most part well intentioned.   I, for one, just decline to feel guilty about something which  quite possibly is happening as a normal part of the climate cycle, and I frankly object to other people telling me that I should.



It's a little like the film clip to the Louis Armstrong song "What a wonderful world". 
Forgive me for my cynicism, but some might say 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions'. Call my "insistent, relentless self-flagellation", the yin, and my desired outcome, the yang


----------



## wayneL (10 September 2008)

Pat said:


> I for one am still not convinced we are causing it, but am convinced we are contributing to GW If only 1%. It is time for a green revolution, the sooner, and greener the better.
> Humans have a large foot print on this planet, you name it we've stuffed it up, and small to extremely large eco-systems are absolutely f@#ked because of our senseless ways. Is it unfathomable to think we could take it to a global level?
> 
> Most solutions that have been put forward will solve many issues that face society and the environment today, not just potential climate warming. It is the implementation of the solutions that should be the focus of argument, "How can we do this in the most efficient way?" would be the ultimate question.




Pat.

The exclusive focus on co2 means that all manner of other evils are ignored. I don't agree that co2 "solutions" will solve anything unless the focus is more holistic.

Nuclear power for instance opens up a whole new can of worms. Tidal power generation I read slows down the planet's rotation - This potentially could create real, measurable and devastating climate change in time.

The oceans are simultaneously being used as a tip and a food source; fishing methods are destrying the marine ecosystems. Potentially much more disastrous than anything to do with CC.

I could go on, but as ever, my position is that the IPCC is drawing attention and great mountains of cash away from "real" problems, to feed a noxious gravy train that is designed as a covert commercial endeavour.


----------



## wayneL (10 September 2008)

To add: Why is no world body concerned about the environmental impact of modern warfare? Splattering DU everywhere, spillage of Crude oil everywhere, possible nuclear fallout if the certifiably insane Medvedev and Bush (or however) start pushing red buttons.

what about habitat destruction so MacD's and Burger King can sell atrocious hamburgers to boguns?

etc etc etc

Real and measurable, but no money in it.


----------



## Julia (10 September 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> be aware Pat that Julia is prepared to argue some strange positions -
> even when Wayne agrees that he has changed his mind on this, Julia thinks he hasn't.




Dear 2020,

I think you will hopefully have understood from Wayne's subsequent comments that once again you are mistaken in your interpretation.

May I please ask you, very politely, to read the posts on which you wish to comment properly before making more silly comments.

Thank you very much.

Julia


----------



## wayneL (10 September 2008)

Julia said:


> Dear 2020,
> 
> I think you will hopefully have understood from Wayne's subsequent comments that once again you are mistaken in your interpretation.
> 
> ...



But Julia, how can 2020 argue these untenable positions of his without ignoring most of the facts?


----------



## Pat (10 September 2008)

wayneL said:


> Pat.
> 
> The exclusive focus on co2 means that all manner of other evils are ignored. I don't agree that co2 "solutions" will solve anything unless the focus is more holistic.
> 
> ...



One solution is solar power... A real possibility. The way the world is changing we shall certainly have more than enough desert to make it so.
Tidal power? Seems to complicated like hydrogen engines.

Agree, a lot more money could be spent on other, more important things... Begs the question though, are the billions spent on the LHC reasonable? Should scientists stop studying/spending on investigating climate change?

Slowly but surely we'll get there... to an environmental utopia that is. IMO the 'slowly' part could be made a little if not a lot quicker.


----------



## Pat (10 September 2008)

wayneL said:


> To add: Why is no world body concerned about the environmental impact of modern warfare? Splattering DU everywhere, spillage of Crude oil everywhere, possible nuclear fallout if the certifiably insane Medvedev and Bush (or however) start pushing red buttons.
> 
> what about habitat destruction so MacD's and Burger King can sell atrocious hamburgers to boguns?
> 
> ...



Reminds me of the Hungry Jacks quad whopper  ... Sheesh!!!


----------



## Pat (10 September 2008)

Julia said:


> ... i.e. the insistent, relentless self-flagellation...



Julia, I thought this was a little strange, It's not like I'm Silas whipping myself, or mankind for that matter  But I get your point.


----------



## Julia (11 September 2008)

Pat said:


> Julia, I thought this was a little strange, It's not like I'm Silas whipping myself, or mankind for that matter  But I get your point.



Well, if you did get my point, Pat, then that means my metaphorical imagery worked.   I'm so glad.


----------



## Calliope (11 September 2008)

Pat said:


> Slowly but surely we'll get there... to an environmental utopia that is. IMO the 'slowly' part could be made a little if not a lot quicker.




Environmental utopia Now there's an oxymoron for you. Is that what the cavemen had?


----------



## Pat (11 September 2008)

Calliope said:


> Environmental utopia Now there's an oxymoron for you. Is that what the cavemen had?



I think It's possible, maybe a startrek type future, where we can bring whales back from the past and such and such


----------



## nioka (11 September 2008)

Pat said:


> I think It's possible, maybe a startrek type future, where we can bring whales back from the past and such and such




Been out to sea lately? The whales are getting back to pest proportions. With global warming they wont have to swim so far to calve in the warmer waters. 
The barrier reef will start to form off our coast in northern NSW as the water warms. The fishing should improve.
Bring it on. It's been too cold here this winter. The surf is bitterly cold today( that is why I'm still at this computer getting square eyes.)


----------



## Pat (11 September 2008)

nioka said:


> Been out to sea lately? The whales are getting back to pest proportions. With global warming they wont have to swim so far to calve in the warmer waters.
> The barrier reef will start to form off our coast in northern NSW as the water warms. The fishing should improve.
> Bring it on. It's been too cold here this winter. The surf is bitterly cold today( that is why I'm still at this computer getting square eyes.)



I love seeing whales when i'm out surfing, I've seen dolphins and penguins too, I live and surf on the Central Coast NSW. Couldn't believe my eye's when I saw the penguins... My brother in law couldn't either... Stoked was the terminology used .
We don't get warmer waters around here till late december, so It's a springy till then, though I havent surfed since May last year.  
Don't think my wet suits will fit anymore .


----------



## brianlc (11 September 2008)

I've been reading the news linking meat to global warming. This has been a hot topic on the net in the past week, so I'm posting some links and ideas on these issues at a new page:

http://lowcarbclimatechange.blogspot.com/

(If you like, please take a look at the links posted there - but let's have a conversation here on this board!)

The UN is afraid of the implications of growing demand for meat, especially beef, in newly affluent development countries.  But it seems to me they have it backward - we need to encourage high protein diets for good heath, in the developing world as well as at home.  It is the rice production that may be responsible for more methane emissions - but no one talks about alternatives to rice as a means of mitigating climate change, just meat!

Please let me know what you think.

Thank you!


----------



## Julia (11 September 2008)

brianlc said:


> I've been reading the news linking meat to global warming. This has been a hot topic on the net in the past week, so I'm posting some links and ideas on these issues at a new page:
> 
> http://lowcarbclimatechange.blogspot.com/
> 
> ...




Could you provide some references for the claim that rice production may be responsible for more methane emissions?


----------



## wayneL (11 September 2008)

Methane is a non-issue.

The real issue with meat production is land and resource use. 

To feed a vego you need 400m2 of land per person.

To feed a meat eater you need 20,000m2 per person.


----------



## 2020hindsight (11 September 2008)

Might have to ask you for a link there as well wayne 
 Are we talking about the same land - same rainfall etc ?


----------



## wayneL (11 September 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Might have to ask you for a link there as well wayne
> Are we talking about the same land - same rainfall etc ?



Common sense. I can feed myself from my back garden and have done so in the past with very little bought in. 

Just running 1 beast requires far more land.

But here's a link, scroll down past the methane nonsense. http://veg.ca/content/view/133/111/


----------



## Pat (12 September 2008)

Posted this a few pages back, but since we are on the topic of food and such.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/09/soil/mann-text


----------



## brianlc (12 September 2008)

I think the distinction is that wet rice paddy farming is a big problem, not agriculture in general, which is obviously a good thing.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/x02g246767671815/


----------



## websman (12 September 2008)

Global warming is a fraud....


----------



## 2020hindsight (12 September 2008)

wayneL said:


> Common sense. I can feed myself from my back garden and have done so in the past with very little bought in.
> 
> Just running 1 beast requires far more land.



fair enough I guess

they pack em into feed lots - but then where does the hay / grain come from. 

Maybe you should put a small fishfarm at the bottom of that garden and be self sufficent wayne .

and throw in an egg ( 1 m^2 per person 

maybe we should blackban BigMac/s - only get fishburgers (and live on the harvest of 3000 sq miles of ocean each   )


----------



## Pat (12 September 2008)

websman said:


> Global warming is a fraud....



And the logic used to come up with that one Mr Vulcan avatar?


----------



## Calliope (13 September 2008)

One option not in the poll is;

We take corrective action even though the costs of mitigation clearly exceed the benefits of reducing global emissions.

That is now Prof. Ross Garnaut's conclusion

www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/opinion


----------



## Pat (13 September 2008)

Calliope said:


> www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/opinion



That's a little pessimistic IMO..


> The simple answer is of course that we should reduce only if the world -- in practice, that means the US, China, India and Europe -- agrees. What on earth is the point of reducing unilaterally?




Who dares go first? 

You might say-
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
Edmund Burke.

I would hope, in 50yrs time, we have reduced emissions significantly. Technology will make it cost effective... I hope.


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 September 2008)

I've copied these posts from the WA election thread.  Probably the only thing where I agreed with Johnny Howard - although he was vascillating bigtime at the end.  

I post this to show that China will / could reduce their carbon emissions per head with this trend. (while we are left behind).   PS if it happens of course.  



2020hindsight] better still  said:


> Hi 2020, Glad to see you're for nuclear powerstations in Australia. I prefer them in China with the waste sent to Europe. Still, I respect your view on this and maybe you're right "more nuclear powerstations in Australia - noi




http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/01/2351819.htm



> Australian uranium could fuel 70pc of China: BHP
> Posted Mon Sep 1, 2008 12:47pm AEST
> 
> BHP Billiton chairman Don Argus says Australia could be supplying 70 per cent of China's power needs from uranium in the future. Mr Argus told a business conference in Canberra that China is Australia's most important trading partner.
> ...


----------



## spooly74 (14 September 2008)

> *Cleared: Jury decides that threat of global warming justifies breaking the law*
> 
> The threat of global warming is so great that campaigners were justified in causing more than £35,000 worth of damage to a coal-fired power station, a jury decided yesterday. In a verdict that will have shocked ministers and energy companies the jury at Maidstone Crown Court cleared six Greenpeace activists of criminal damage.




http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...arming-justifies-breaking-the-law-925561.html

Mind you, it did seem like some pretty expensive paint


----------



## Pat (17 September 2008)

An oxygen crisis, not sure what to make of this... 




> *The oxygen crisis-* Could the decline of oxygen in the atmosphere undermine our health and threaten human survival?




http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/13/carbonemissions.climatechange

I think the oxygen breathing animals (like us) will adapt as if we are living at higher altitude...

Some food for thought anyway.

Why I doubt-



> I am not a scientist, but this seems a reasonable concern. It is a possibility that we should examine and assess. So, what's the evidence?




and



> Surprisingly, no significant research has been done, perhaps on the following presumption: the decline in oxygen levels has taken place over millions of years of our planet's existence.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 September 2008)

spooly74 said:


> http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...arming-justifies-breaking-the-law-925561.html
> 
> Mind you, it did seem like some pretty expensive paint



Thing is, building a new coal-fired plant has absolutely NO impact on a country's CO2 emissions whatsoever unless either (1) they are not part of the Kyoto Protocol or (2) have no intention of meeting their Kyoto targets. 

The whole point of an agreement like that, or a system like emissions trading, is that you then don't have to worry about individual power stations, how many cars are on the road etc since total emissions have already been set by law.

I thus conclude that the protest constitutes official admission from Greenpeace that the Kyoto Protocol does NOT do anything meaningful to reduce CO2 emissions and is a complete waste of time. On that point I'd agree with them. 

In more practical terms, the UK situation is precisely why I'm so opposed to reliance on natural gas as a "solution" to the energy situation. This is what happens when it runs out - straight back to coal as the only quick fix that can be built fast enough.


----------



## Calliope (18 September 2008)

You can forget about global warming. Only the very rich, or rich organisations like Greenpeace can afford to be environmentalists. The global warming scare will be subsumed by the struggle for economic survival. It is all to do with the Heirarchy of Needs.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 September 2008)

Calliope said:


> You can forget about global warming. Only the very rich, or rich organisations like Greenpeace can afford to be environmentalists. The global warming scare will be subsumed by the struggle for economic survival. It is all to do with the Heirarchy of Needs.



Strongly agreed there.

Recent events in the financial markets marked the effective end of any serious move to cut emissions IMO. It will still be in the news for a while, but if you can't finance proven industry like a pulp mill or keep a bank afloat then forget investment in hugely capital intensive renewable energy schemes which depend on the whim of politicians to be even remotely profitable.

The capital to make a transition just isn't there now IMO and won't be for a very long time. It's going to be hard enough keeping $2 billion conventional power plants financed without trying to build $15 billion replacements.


----------



## Pat (19 September 2008)

Calliope said:


> You can forget about global warming. Only the very rich, or rich organisations like Greenpeace can afford to be environmentalists. The global warming scare will be subsumed by the struggle for economic survival. It is all to do with the Heirarchy of Needs.



Agree with your post and It's . I don't think we can forget about GW. The world is warming and we will need to adapt, emission reduction or not. No mor building on the beach etc...



Smurf1976 said:


> The capital to make a transition just isn't there now IMO



I don't think the money has ever been there, there will never be enough money, this seems to be only 'real' hurdle.


----------



## 2020hindsight (22 September 2008)

Tim Flannery on "Enough Rope" 

"The earth's predicament is like being told you have cancer  "

"you can't pick up a fossil without seeing the environment that co-existed with it"


----------



## mit (22 September 2008)

I'm surprised that there are still doubters. It goes to show how much people listen to those that validate their positions even if it denies reality.

The reality is that the data supporting man made global warming is like a mountain. This data is supported by thousands of scientists in many different fields showing a great consilience of data. (Any idea that these scientists have a vested interest in keeping the status quo is crazy as they would get a nobel prize).

On the other side we have a handful of hacks, if they have credentials they are usually in unrelated fields. 

It is the same for Evolution Denial, AIDS Denial and Holocaust Denial. They all sound the same.


----------



## Pat (22 September 2008)

mit said:


> I'm surprised that there are still doubters. It goes to show how much people listen to those that validate their positions even if it denies reality.
> 
> The reality is that the data supporting man made global warming is like a mountain. This data is supported by thousands of scientists in many different fields showing a great consilience of data. (Any idea that these scientists have a vested interest in keeping the status quo is crazy as they would get a nobel prize).
> 
> ...



Any theory that cannot, at least possibly, be disproved, is not scientific. 

Any simpleton can see that there may possibly be a link between us, and the forever changing environment.
I dare say, if the environmental change was for the better, we humans would be claiming it was us who did the 'good' deed.


----------



## moXJO (22 September 2008)

It will all balance out once the oil runs dry.


----------



## nioka (24 September 2008)

Early this week i was listening to reports of dust storms and gale force winds in southern NSW. This was followed up later in the day with reports of mud falling onto cars causing them to pull off the road as the mud obscured the windscreen. Now I notice on the weather site something a lot of people have waited a long time for. "Flood warnings for the Murray River upstream from the Hume weir"

 Will it reach the SA border. Water from heaven as it were. Will the state and federal governments fight over who to sell it to and for how much. Maybe they will just keep it in the Hume dam as "Enviromental" water for the endangered Murray cod.

Do we put it down to a freakish event caused by global warming.


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 September 2008)

mit said:


> (Any idea that these scientists have a vested interest in keeping the status quo is crazy as they would get a nobel prize).



Agreed that they don't generally have a vested interest in keeping the status quo.

They do, however, have a strongly vested interest in any outcome which leads to the conclusion that more research into climate change is needed. That is, after all, the basis of their employment and in some cases the sole reason for the existence of their employers. 

We won't see governments pouring money into climate change research if the scientists start saying it's anything other than a near term, serious problem. That's how government funding works for anything - if it's not serious and not now then it's not funded.

Most climate change deniers are associated with those who stand to benefit from the status quo. Most on the other side (at the scientific level) are directly benefiting from public concern about the issue. Just about everyone involved is biased.


----------



## noco (25 September 2008)

Noted a documentary on Sky News recently where China are serious about reducing Greenhouse gas emmissions by steering away from coal fired power stations and converting their  infrastructure to nuclear power and will  shortly be requiring   heaps of uranium.

As at 2005 there was some 439 Nuclear Power Stations in the northern hemisphere.

I hope Penny Wong reads this. Perhaps we should be thinking Nuclear as John Howard suggested. No doubt the critics will come back with  "not in my back yard" and where are we going to store the waste?


----------



## Buddy (25 September 2008)

Read the article. 
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24399166-11949,00.html

Like i've said previously, apparently in this debate on everything, it seems that only "the poor" "pollute". Equally, "rich people" apparently do not "pollute".


----------



## lusk (26 September 2008)

mit said:


> I'm surprised that there are still doubters. It goes to show how much people listen to those that validate their positions even if it denies reality.
> 
> The reality is that the data supporting man made global warming is like a mountain. This data is supported by thousands of scientists in many different fields showing a great consilience of data. (Any idea that these scientists have a vested interest in keeping the status quo is crazy as they would get a nobel prize).




The "data" is a joke, anyone with an idea in testing and measurement knows it. Anyone that seems to speak out against global warming gets shut down no different to what seems to occur in this thread. 

Most people wouldn't even be able to explain why carbon dioxide is surposed to cause global warming, they just believe what the media tells them because thousand's of scientist's said so.


http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html


----------



## Pat (26 September 2008)

lusk said:


> The "data" is a joke, anyone with an idea in testing and measurement knows it. Anyone that seems to speak out against global warming gets shut down no different to what seems to occur in this thread.
> 
> Most people wouldn't even be able to explain why carbon dioxide is surposed to cause global warming, they just believe what the media tells them because thousand's of scientist's said so.
> 
> ...



I don't see you "shutting down" mit there lusk.


----------



## Pat (26 September 2008)

lusk said:


> http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html



I still say, our planet needs saving from us. Our foot print is just too large, we can be more efficient and therefore have less effect on the environment. 
Most peeps in this thread would agree with the above. I just beleive AGW is a great excuse to change...rapidly.


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 September 2008)

mit]The reality is that the data supporting man made global warming is like a mountain. [/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=lusk said:


> The "data" is a joke, *anyone with an idea in testing and measurement knows it*. ....




Think I agree with mit - It sure does look like a mountain..
Here is NASA's website :-
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/



> Our traditional analysis using only meteorological station data is a line plot of global annual-mean surface air temperature change derived from the meteorological station network [This is an update of Figure 6(b) in Hansen et al. (2001).]
> 
> *Uncertainty bars (95% confidence limits)* are shown for both the annual and five-year means, account only for incomplete spatial sampling of data




lusk, I assume you ("anyone with an idea in testing and measurement") know what confidence limits mean?

btw, remember we are heading for at least 2 degrees hotter than that by 2100. (assuming we really get behind this)  - and a damned site more than that if we dont    The entire y axis as drawn is only 1.4degC.


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 September 2008)

PS here's another graph from that NASA website . an interesting comparison of nth and sth hemispheres..


----------



## Pat (26 September 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Think I agree with mit - It sure does look like a mountain.



Yes the evidence is there. They make reference to the hypothesis it in text books I'll be using in uni next year.



mit said:


> It is the same for Evolution Denial, AIDS Denial and Holocaust Denial. They all sound the same.



I like this quote mit. Denial of the AGW possibility due to pressure on the economy. Well we don't need AGW to stuff the world economy do we?


----------



## lusk (26 September 2008)

2020hindsight said:


> Think I agree with mit - It sure does look like a mountain..
> Here is NASA's website :-
> http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
> 
> ...




I know what accuracy of measurement is, just think of the monumental task of co-ordinating all the equipment to measure, keep calibrated and log for 100 years and your looking at a change of 1C, that would be error alone.

The rapid change on that graph could be nothing more than equipment and measuring systems improving over time and the recorded values reaching the true value.

l do agree that we need to seriously look at the way we treat this planet, it's nothing short of a disgrace and something needs to be done. l just don't think we are going to roast like we are led to believe.


----------



## Calliope (30 September 2008)

The cost of trying to reduce carbon emissions is a luxury we can no longer afford. Bob Brown and the thousands of cloistered academics who have been predicting the end of the world from global warming will now become irrelevent.

 The news coming out of the world's markets this morning should convince any rational person that the choices of saving the world from global warming for our grandchildren or saving ourselves now from the poorhouse are not compatible.


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 September 2008)

Calliope said:


> The cost of trying to reduce carbon emissions is a luxury we can no longer afford. Bob Brown and the thousands of cloistered academics who have been predicting the end of the world from global warming will now become irrelevent.
> 
> The news coming out of the world's markets this morning should convince any rational person that the choices of saving the world from global warming for our grandchildren or saving ourselves now from the poorhouse are not compatible.



I've noted on various occasions that public concern about the environment peaks when the economy peaks.

 I saw a news item yesterday saying that climate change had slipped from 1 to 5 on the list of major issues the general public is concerned about. In all seriousness, I'd be surprised if it's even on the agenda in 12 months time unless we see a serious turn around in the economic situation. I'm not saying that I necessarily agree with this. It's just what I think will actually happen.


----------



## wayneL (30 September 2008)

Calliope said:


> The cost of trying to reduce carbon emissions is a luxury we can no longer afford. Bob Brown and the thousands of cloistered academics who have been predicting the end of the world from global warming will now become irrelevent.
> 
> The news coming out of the world's markets this morning should convince any rational person that the choices of saving the world from global warming for our grandchildren or saving ourselves now from the poorhouse are not compatible.



I wonder if we can cut the climate alarmist gravy train budget then?

Make them walk and use pushbikes instead of limousine motorcades. Make them use video conferencing instead of meeting at luxury south pacific resorts.


----------



## Calliope (30 September 2008)

There are thousands of people out there with over-mortgaged, unsaleable four-bedroomed houses, unpaid-for Toorak tractors, BMAs and giant plasma TVs. These are the same people who had feel-good ,warm and fuzzy feelings about saving the earth from global warming. They said they were quite prepared to make financial sacrifices to achieve this goal, and they thought you and me should do the same.

They will now come back to earth with a thud. Their feel-good fuzzy feelings will disappear like rats up a drainpipe. A lot of these people have parasitic occupations in financial services and banking. They will find there are not many global warming theorists in the dole queue.

Even all those GW theorists living on tax-payer funded hand-outs will not be immune. Pensioners can forget about a rise. Taxpayer funded maternity leave will be on indefinite hold. All available funding will be needed for the genuinely unemployed


----------



## Pat (30 September 2008)

Seems that the environment and GW is still on top of the news-
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24424571-2,00.html


----------



## Pat (30 September 2008)

On another note, what may help the financial and environmental sting would be doubling or tripling the efficiency of cars, trucks, busses, planes etc.
Heaven forbid the oil co's go broke as well.


----------



## Pat (1 October 2008)

A little article on the some of the costs involved for the individuals on making a change...

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24429007-5009760,00.html



> "But there's a chance, just a chance, that humanity will deal with this matter in a way that future generations judge to be satisfactory.
> 
> "If we fail ... the failure of our generation will haunt humanity until the end of time."




Good to see where at least trying and submitting solutions


----------



## Green08 (7 June 2009)

I watched a Discovery programme this morning. Had me wondering on the merits of human intervention.

An American had the idea of blanketing the entire area of Greenland in a white poylurethne material to reflect light and hopefully keep the ice underneath frozen.

As the programme rolled on I could see their sense of determination and sincere wish to stop the melting. Kudo's to them. They did a control area of 2 acres covered in 3 days. Yes they took into account most events that could topple their creation.

But, the 'blanket' is made from a human made processed fibre. So you take in the sourcing, manufacturing, energy to process, protective plastic over the blanket, delivery from Austria, and all the other elements to final application. Let alone all the other items needed for implementation.

Now doesn't the entire manufacturing process and delivery of all items negate the whole theory of preventing or slowing down the melt - in the broad sense? 

I do believe the climate is changing.  Cause? No idea, could be all the exhaled mojo smoke.  Nothing we do will stop it. Nature repeating itself once again.  If we can't stop tsunami's, tornadoes, flooding, volcanoes erupting seriously - are humans so egotisically minded to think we can alter the earth's climate? We just have to go with it isn't that what we've been doing- evolving and extinguishing. We are but a speck of dust in the scheme of things.  Humans have a brillant way of constantly wasting limited resources on things they can't change.


----------



## Soft Dough (7 June 2009)

Green08 said:


> Humans have a brillant way of constantly wasting limited resources on things they can't change.




Absolutely,

Now please tell this to our politicians who, even though they know AGW is a scientist beatup designed to get them limitless funding, will do whatever it takes to keep the general public vote.  

It is such a shame that people who are influencing decisions of this ludicrous position of AGW have no idea about science, and no idea of historical climate history, causes and implications.


----------



## Pat (8 June 2009)

Green08 said:


> Humans have a brillant way of constantly wasting limited resources on things they can't change.



I reckon we waste more on administering red tape...



Soft Dough said:


> Absolutely,
> 
> Now please tell this to our politicians who, even though they know AGW is a scientist beatup designed to get them limitless funding, will do whatever it takes to keep the general public vote.
> 
> It is such a shame that people who are influencing decisions of this ludicrous position of AGW have no idea about science, and no idea of historical climate history, causes and implications.



Anthropogenic climate change is a scientist beat up? 
Limitless funding for what? Giant blankets?
Its a shame all those Doctors and Professors (who have no idea about the science) are giving biased information to fuel their lust for further funding the science beat up... 

Profitability is stopping the transition to cleaner transportation and power.


----------



## Green08 (8 June 2009)

Pat said:


> I reckon we waste more on administering red tape.




Yes Pat humans are good a wasting alot of things - money is number one.



> Profitability is stopping the transition to cleaner transportation and power.




A lot of Uni students and inquisitive people / kids who aren't paid a cent, do come up with some great ideas.  Half the problem is acknowledgment and funding. One great Australian couldn't get funding for a solar project in Australia. So he went to the USA and California gave him millions to instigate the project. It was so successful it is being repeated across the country.

My problem with intervention is the 'race to get the funding' on projects that are not solving anything as their very nature of production negates the goal they want to achieve.

I'm all for new technology if we can just clean up our environment and have clean air and healthier surroundings. That would be a major achievement.

I don't believe humans can do anything major to slow down a natural event. 
One persons goodwill is counter acted by some one who does understand or care. Being asked to pay for saving the Amazon is a slap in the face. They stuff up due to greed then expect us to pick up the tab. You can't stop little minds from continual abuse of the forest, it will never stop.

When the solar flares start in the next year or so the weather will probably become more extreme. Then the 'blame' will be put on the sun.

If your (not personal to you) world is changing and you don't like it, move, adapt to the change but don't expect sympathy when you carry on and sit like a stunned rabbit.


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 June 2009)

Pat said:


> Profitability is stopping the transition to cleaner transportation and power.



It is energy _productivity_ that is the inherent barrier with alternative energy sources. Oil is simply the most productive thing we've come up with thus far with gas and coal not far behind. 

Productivity? Consider that just one barrel of oil represents the energy content of more than a full year's worth of hard manual labour. But it doesn't take anywhere near one man year of work to get a barrel of oil out of the ground - it is thus a means of leveraging human productivity and that's the primary reason we use it.

Oil, gas, coal, hydro are all highly productive in terms of return on human effort invested. To be a viable replacement, any alternative needs to achieve that same level of productivity - not easy when you're dealing with dispersed resources like wind, sun etc rather than the highly concentrated energy in oil, coal or from a single dam on a big river. 

That's why oil, coal, hydro etc are viable energy sources but solar generally isn't - there's nowhere on Earth that has a natural high concentration of sunlight sufficient to enable high productivity in its use. We do the best we can with wind farms on hill tops, which do provide a natural concentration of wind to some extent, but it's still a diffuse energy source versus the highly concentrated energy in fossil fuels, nuclear or hydro.


----------



## Pat (8 June 2009)

Green08 said:


> I don't believe humans can do anything major to slow down a natural event.



They say we can slow it down because we have sped it up, or enhanced climate change.

Science is a funny thing, most discoveries are serendipitous, that costly blanket might provide a breakthrough in some other field of science, say insulation... There is usually a profitable reason for funding.


----------



## Pat (9 June 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> It is energy _productivity_ that is the inherent barrier with alternative energy sources. Oil is simply the most productive thing we've come up with thus far with gas and coal not far behind.
> 
> Productivity? Consider that just one barrel of oil represents the energy content of more than a full year's worth of hard manual labour. But it doesn't take anywhere near one man year of work to get a barrel of oil out of the ground - it is thus a means of leveraging human productivity and that's the primary reason we use it.
> 
> ...



Yes this is true, we are unable to meet demand...

But then I guess we need to analyse "demand", and how this came to be. 

Economic success relys on on the glutenous use of resources and population growth.

Perhaps Malthusian limits apply not only to food, but many resources.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/06/cheap-food/bourne-text

But we are were we are, and it would seem some change is coming... slowly.
I understand "alternative energy" cannot meet demand... yet, it will one day.


----------



## basilio (9 June 2009)

> *Climate change groundhog day*
> 
> The same nonsense, the same confusions - all seem to be endlessly repeated. But what needs more explaining? (From Real Climate.org)
> 
> ...




http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jun/08/network-climate-change-groundhog-day

I think this article reflects how I feel about the  mindless repetition of arguments against the reality of  man induced global warming  that simply are not true and proven not to be the case many times over.


----------



## --B-- (9 June 2009)

interesting post basilio

what exactly are these arguments you refer to?


----------



## Pat (9 June 2009)

basilio said:


> ...simply are not true and proven not to be the case many times over.



I'd like to see a paper disproving the possibility of anthropogenic climate change. 
Or the proof humans are unable to alter the composition of the atmosphere.
Or proof the composition of the atmosphere has no bearing on global climate.

Or perhaps it is the IPCC's dire predictions that have caused such fuss... But disproving a prediction before the fact is a contradiction in terms is it not?
Maybe the predictions are way, way off, with no use of accepted scientific knowledge... just to throw a spanner in the works.


----------



## Green08 (9 June 2009)

> Or the proof humans are unable to alter the composition of the atmosphere.
> Or proof the composition of the atmosphere has no bearing on global climate.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## basilio (9 June 2009)

> interesting post basilio
> 
> what exactly are these arguments you refer to?




Where do we start ? Assertions that increases in CO2 levels won't increase the amount of retained heat in the atmosphere. Assertions that Sunspots are a far larger factor in global temperatures than they actually are. Statements that there was medieval warm period (Just not true in comparision to  current records) . In fact a number of science sites have outlined the most common  furphies about global warming and the  reality of the situation.  As the article points out these are simply ignored and original argument is put with renewed vigour.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/




> Pat I'm sure humans have had something to do with it but to blame humans for the entirety of the change is surreal. The universal system has its own rhythm. People are 'panicking' as the change is happening in their time.
> 
> Yes we have altered the composition of the atmosphere.
> 
> ...




Green 08 the sad fact is that the more we research the more we realise that in fact we are changing the climate of the world in very quick time.  Yes there there are "rhythms in the universe"  which affect  everything. But unfortunately humankind has substantially altered the chemistry of the earths atmosphere by clearing forests and  turning vast amounts of original  forest (coal, oil) back into CO2. And it is this  rapid increase in CO2 which is holding in the extra heat that is going to cook us.

The options?

1) Do nothing, have a party and cook  or
2) Recognise just how bad the situation is and  have a red hot go at attempting to reverse the trend. How? Check out the URl Below

http://www.safeclimateaustralia.org/

Interestingly enough in order to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to a "safe climate level" we need to  capture and hold untold billions of tons of CO2 through foresty,  increasing soil carbon capacity and other means.  Not to mention reducing out current CO2 output to practically zilch... 

And the sad part is that by 1990 the understanding of global warming was sufficient to say we were facing a serious problem. And if we had made a determined start on the problems 20 years ago .. well things may not look as bleak as they do now.

Did I mention this was a big ask ?


----------



## Bobby (9 June 2009)

. 


 Population growth equals pollution increases , the  more humans the more green house gases released .
Solution is reduce world population  .

Free Nembutal ?   :


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 June 2009)

Pat said:


> Yes this is true, we are unable to meet demand...
> 
> But then I guess we need to analyse "demand", and how this came to be.
> 
> ...



Can't argue with that. The present economic paradigm relies absolutely on not only population growth, but on increased consumption per capita. That second point is possible only by two means - constantly increasing work effort or constantly increasing productivity. 

Any reduction in energy productivity isn't about paying an extra 4 cents a kWh for power and catching the bus to work. It literally unravels the entire economic structure where _tomorrow's_ growth is collateral for _today's_ debt.

We won't be messing about with fossil fuels in 200 years time I think that's pretty certain. Either we come up with something radical, and realistically that would almost certainly be nuclear or geothermal since along with hydro (which is a limited resource) they are the only high productivity, high grade non-fossil energy sources we have apart from localised use of biomass.

More realistically though I'm expecting that we'll go part of the way with nuclear (probably via thorium reactors rather than uranium) and geothermal but that doesn't fix everything. We'll do a bit with wind, wave, solar, biomass and some more hydro too but again it's ultimately not enough. 

They collectively fix everything with one exception - transport. When you realise that just one semi doing 100 km/h is running at around 500 kW of primary energy then you start to understand the problem with transport. Stand beside a main road in even a modest town and watch the megawatts roll by. We're not replacing that with a few batteries that's for sure. And if we go to rail then we're back with the productivity issue - that's why trucking boomed in the first place. Likewise if we replace aircraft with ships.

Overall, I see the real problem as simply this. We've got all sorts of energy sources but NONE of them can deliver the massive productivity that fossil fuels do now. 

Industrial civilisation works because we use energy and equipment to leverage human productivity. That's fine when the energy comes with no real effort (the vast majority of people don't work in oil or gas...) but it comes unstuck big time once we have to put significant effort into getting energy. And all those diffuse sources require more effort, a point that even their strongest supporters have always acknowledged.

Even conventional nuclear power doesn't really stack up in many situations compared to coal / oil / gas / hydro. We've put massive resources in to get back, thus far, relatively little. Coal still produces twice as much electricity globally whilst hydro and gas are both in the same order of magnitude as nuclear. But all those require a lot less effort and messing about.


----------



## basilio (9 June 2009)

For those interested in where we are with regard to GW and what we need to do to dig our way out, I came across an exceptionally powerful anlaysis in Mother Earth Magazine a few years ago.

I have posted an excerpt and the reference.

Cheers


> The Thirteenth Tipping Point
> 12 global disasters and 1 powerful antidote
> 
> ....IN 2004, JOHN SCHELLNHUBER, distinguished science adviser at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in the United Kingdom, identified 12 global-warming tipping points, any one of which, if triggered, will likely initiate sudden, catastrophic changes across the planet. Odds are you've never heard of most of these tipping points, even though your entire genetic legacy””your children, your grandchildren, and beyond””may survive or not depending on their status.
> ...




http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2006/11/thirteenth-tipping-point


----------



## Pat (9 June 2009)

Good post Smurf...
Your "radical idea" will most likely be found in fusion... but I think we are way off, quite possibly 200 yrs. I have read a little about the ITER reacter in France, nice and expensive.

You are right in saying transport is a big concern, something like 46% of pollutants are produced by transportation. 

But I think electricity is the key. I have heard it is cleaner to use electricity generated by coal to power a car than using petrol.

Electric motors and power storage in cars have not had the time or money to develop and evolve. Give a little time, technology will evolve as it does and soon enough we'll have our electric trucks and busses.

Right now we are completly dependant on fossil fuel to keep society running. Some sort of shift is obviously needed.


----------



## Happy (10 June 2009)

And imagine that we would be able to delay the problem by couple of thousand years should we adopt China’s 1 child policy for several centuries.

This way we would buy extra time to develop new energy.


----------



## Green08 (10 June 2009)

Happy said:


> And imagine that we would be able to delay the problem by couple of thousand years should we adopt China’s 1 child policy for several centuries.




One child policy unless you pay. I would be interesting to see if this auctually worked thought their numbers are increasing all the time

I wonder how many of the 'educated and wealth' were permitted to 'breed' more than one child? More self obnoxious materially orientated is all we need.

You may have a more rapid response in Australia if your STOP the baby bonus and maternity leave entitlements


----------



## --B-- (10 June 2009)

basilio said:


> Where do we start ? Assertions that increases in CO2 levels won't increase the amount of retained heat in the atmosphere. Assertions that Sunspots are a far larger factor in global temperatures than they actually are. Statements that there was medieval warm period (Just not true in comparision to  current records) . In fact a number of science sites have outlined the most common  furphies about global warming and the  reality of the situation.  As the article points out these are simply ignored and original argument is put with renewed vigour.
> 
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/




hmm, any chance of some links to back your claims or are you happy to pass on a pro-AGW hype site in order to 'prove' what you assert?

in addition, what are your thought on the recent temp plateau and subsequent cooling and how this in no way correlates to the IPCCs fancy computer model 'predictions' of continuing rapid increase in temp?


----------



## Pat (11 June 2009)

--B-- said:


> hmm, any chance of some links to back your claims or are you happy to pass on a pro-AGW hype site in order to 'prove' what you assert?
> 
> in addition, what are your thought on the recent temp plateau and subsequent cooling and how this in no way correlates to the IPCCs fancy computer model 'predictions' of continuing rapid increase in temp?



You know... The end result is what the IPCC's model predicts, not how we get there. 

If anyone is looking for anthrogogenic climate change studies, do a simple search in any peer reviewed journal, like Nature-
http://www.nature.com.simsrad.net.ocs.mq.edu.au/
Then you can see the actual material the IPCC uses for there predictions etc... 

If your looking for propaganda, any old website will do.


----------



## --B-- (11 June 2009)

Pat said:


> You know... The end result is what the IPCC's model predicts, not how we get there.




dear oh dear.

and here folks is the problem we face.

when faced with the proof that the 'models' the IPCC have generated in order to prove their assumptions are incorrect, we're still told that its all going to happen in the end.. just now how we said it would.

no offense pat,, but thats quite unbelievable.



> Then you can see the actual material the IPCC uses for there predictions etc...




you mean the material thats has predicted something that hasnt happened but were still supposed to think it will eventually?


----------



## Pat (11 June 2009)

--B-- said:


> dear oh dear.
> 
> and here folks is the problem we face.
> 
> ...



Hmmm...

The computer based models make 4 major climate projections based on emissions scenarios. The models are designed to illustrate the IPCC's arguments, not prove it. They don't display erratic weather, or short term variability such as the ENSO... 

Which scenario doesn't take into account your "recent temp plateau and subsequent cooling"?

Climate change is not about cooking the planet, it is about the possible effects on civilisation. We are quickly changing global environments, changing the balance in many of earth's known cycles, of which the long term effects are unknown, but the question is not what will happen? It is how bad will it be?

We ask this question because we can see our effect on the environment, not because we are being cynical. Just one tiny example is the Murray Darling Basin. The river is dying, at least at its outlet and the land is experiencing desertification, not because of increased emissions, but because of deforestation. This isn't helping a global population with many people starving, as the world grows food production doesn't necessarily grow with it.

We fear increasing greenhouse gasses, by quite a bit- doubling and tripling concentrations, will change the energy balance, and therefore climate, enhancing our detrimental effect on the environment we rely on so much.

We need to wait 90 or so odd yrs and continue to emit have we have always done to settle this debate. Either way a transition away from fossil fuels in the not too distant future is inevitable, and we'll probably look back and wish we invested more as it would of made the the transition easier.


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 June 2009)

Pat said:


> Climate change is not about cooking the planet, it is about the possible effects on civilisation.



Climate change, as the term is commonly understood, most certainly IS about an increase in temperature due to incresing concentrations of greenhouse gases. Perhaps not "cooking" but certainly an increase in temperature.

If the Earth's temperature does not rise then by definition "climate change", "global warming" or "the greenhouse effect", all of which are different terms for the same thing, has not happened. All sorts of other environmental damage maybe, but not CO2-induced warming.

But why not reduce emissions anyway, just in case?

I'll put it this way. I challenge anyone here to put forward a credible plan to actually reduce emissions in their state / country by x% and detail how that would be achieved. I don't mean dubious comments about trading or taxes, but what would physically be done. What would energy consumption be, where would it come from and what would it cost? What would be the impact on exports, imports and GDP?

Do this little exercise and you'll find there's a big downside to cutting emissions as well as the upside. It's either piles of nuclear waste, all sorts of changes to the natural environment for large scale hydro / wind / biomass and/or serious deterioration in state / national wealth. 

There's some pretty big impacts there both environmentally and economically so it's not simply a case of "let's do it anyway" unless you're arguing that those consequences are acceptable moreso than the non-CO2 impacts of fossil fuels (given that the context here is there not being outright proof of CO2-induced warming, we're acting as a precaution only).


----------



## Pat (11 June 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> If the Earth's temperature does not rise then by definition "climate change", "global warming" or "the greenhouse effect", all of which are different terms for the same thing, has not happened. All sorts of other environmental damage maybe, but not CO2-induced warming.



What I wrote is wrong, I omitted the word 'debate', but you omitted the word 'enhancing'... :

The solution for climate change is one that will evolve, there is much economic red tape to cut through. Fundamentaly, we consume resource as if contained in an infinite stockpile.


----------



## mexican (12 June 2009)

transition away from fossil fuels in the not too distant future is inevitable.

Pat if that is the case, then how will steel be made?


----------



## Pat (12 June 2009)

mexican said:


> transition away from fossil fuels in the not too distant future is inevitable.
> 
> Pat if that is the case, then how will steel be made?



Look up the word transition.
and not too distant is 50 yrs or so...


----------



## basilio (15 June 2009)

Where do scientists think we stand with regard to Global Warming  at the moment ?  What are we facing if we don't take a deep breath and change the basis on which we currently run our world?

Came across this current overview by MIT climate scientists.



> *Price of doing nothing costs the earth*
> *
> MIT scientists forecast a global temperature rise of 5.2C by 2100 - but climate change deniers reject models devised by the world's finest minds. So what do they suggest instead… seaweed?*
> 
> ...




http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/may/20/climate-change-denier-mit


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 June 2009)

Pat said:


> The solution for climate change is one that will evolve, there is much economic red tape to cut through. Fundamentaly, we consume resource as if contained in an infinite stockpile.



Agreed there.

One thing that really worries me though is that virtually all of the so-called "solutions" rely on burning a lot more natural gas to replace coal for electricity. 

Now, given that gas is a highly concentrated resource geographically (Russia, Iran and Qatar have well over half of it) I'm not too comfortable with that in terms of the non-climate consequences. At best it puts effective control of virtually everyone in the hands of a very few who gain an effective right to take as much economically as they choose. At worst, I can see it very easily leading to war at some point.

Prior to the CO2 issue gaining prominence, the general concern in relation to energy was about how to shift away from oil and gas. They are both very limited reources relative to current and especially future demand and both are subject to the geopolitical issues. 

The resource issues haven't gone away. We continue to find less oil than we're using once you net out the phony reserves of countries where real reserves are a state secret with only policially acceptable data (which remains the same year after year despite ongoing production) published.

There's also the point that simply shifting to gas is a road to nowhere. What do we do in 20 (not 50) years time when production's near peak and we're faced with all the associated problems? What do we do with an entire fleet of relatively new power stations that can only run on gas or liquid fuels (modern gas-fired plants can't be converted to conventional coal-fired operation since they don't have boilers as such)?

The inevitable answer involves first a crisis (shortage, price spike, war) followed by a crash course coal liquefaction and/or gasification - and they're anything but "clean" environmentally. *Note what's happening already in the US, UK and others where gas production has peaked - they're going straight back to coal*.

I'd be a LOT more on side with those calling for cuts to CO2 if they'd stop pretending that we have far more gas than seems likely. It's a limited resource that we need to make fertilizer (food!), plastics, chemicals as well as efficient use for direct heat. And it's the only real replacement we've got in the near term for liquid fuels for transport.

So yes, cutting emissions I'm OK with. But it needs to be done via proper solutions rather than a temporary shift in fuels that ends up committing us to coal in the future. 

Trouble is, and I'm sure that environmentalists are well aware of this, a solution that doesn't depend on limited gas reserves that WILL run out means building a lot more nuclear power plants, big hydro dams, wind farms as well as finding a way to make geothermal a major energy source as soon as possible, associated with which is a lot more transmission lines and a shift toward, not away from, centralised grid electricity. Either that or we bring about a massive reduction in energy demand somehow, a situation that has serious implications for the wellbeing of most people on Earth - the West could cut to literally zero but that's not enough if China etc continue to develop using coal.

Solution? End the focus on CO2 per se and focus on fossil fuel use itself. Treat coal as no better or worse than gas or oil. Then have an international agreement to cut fossil use, not CO2. That puts us on track to fix the problem in the long term without heavily penalising those countries, most notably the US, with very mature gas and lots of coal. But with total fossil fuel use capped, it still fixes the problem in the end - and that's a lot better than what we're doing at the moment.

In terms of resources, most nuclear fuel is at present completely wasted via the throw away uranium nuclear fuel cycle. There are truly massive resources there that are going to waste.

Thorium is another one. Nuclear yes, but far more of it than uranium and thorium reactor is inherently safe - it requires external input to run (in a manner similar to how a petrol engine doesn't run without electricity - turn that off and it WILL stop there and then).

Hydro too. Two thirds of the world's potential is untapped and yet hydro is still by far the dominant source of renewable electricity both locally and globally. I know it will upset many, but it's an actual replacement for baseload coal-fired power whereas wind and solar are not. I'm not saying dam the whole lot, but I do think we could do more and it's very proven, safe and cheap technology. And even Bob Brown admits that the damage from dams can be largely reversed in a matter of decades at most - that sure beats the impacts of coal, oil, gas, uranium etc.

And geothermal. Plenty of heat there and using it is just conventional steam turbines (same as coal or nuclear) so no problems in the power station. And transporting that power is just conventional extra high voltage transmission lines on steel towers - we've been building those right here in Australia for 95 years now. All we have to work out is a cheap and reliable means of getting the heat to the surface in the form of steam - something that seems quite doable when you consider the lengths we go to in order to extract oil and gas.

And the others? Well wind especially makes a good supplement especially if integrated with hydro. Same with _large scale_ solar thermal (not panels on roofs) which works even better since it's more predictable. But they are not, with present technology, actual replacements for baseload coal, gas, nucelar or hydro generation no matter how much money you throw at them, a situation that would change only with the development of very large scale storage technology.

In the Australian context, and I've said this here before, geothermal holds the key for baseload generation supplemented by both natural flow and pumped storage hydro (yes we DO have suitable sites, that's a fact that's been known for decades) plus a bit of wind and solar.

When? Stop building conventional fossil fuel power plants. They don't last forever and many are getting old now so there's no need for forced closures. Just build the geothermal plus a bit of wind now and eventually add more hydro too whilst shifting final energy consumption towards, not away from, grid electricity. Coal and gas will just decline in an orderly manner with that approach.


----------



## Aussiejeff (16 June 2009)

All this talk about "climate change", "global warming" etc is moot.

When it comes down to tin tacks and actual delivery of real programs & policies, the MAIN policy driving forces (as far as gummints are concerned now and for the foreseeable future) are -

(1) JOBS, JOBS, JOBS.

(2) ENDLESS, FAST ECONOMIC GROWTH (via trade, commodities, manufacturing consumables etc).

(3) ENDLESS, FAST ASSET GROWTH (via commercial & private R/E, commercial & private monetary wealth schemes etc).

(4) JOBS, JOBS, JOBS (oh, have I already mentioned that?).    

Seems to me for all of the above conditions to be met, the planet will require a rapidly expanding human population, with that population increasingly greedy for much higher living standards and an exponential willingness to CONSUME, CONSUME, CONSUME.

So, given the above primary driving factors of governement policy, can someone please explain to me how the current climate debate will address the above stumbling blocks?

chiz,


aj


----------



## Buddy (16 June 2009)

Couldn't find an appropriate thread for this, so I decided to put it here (sort of relates to the topic).......

On the issue of phasing out incandescent light globes "to save the planet": Now all the wierdo pollies, looney lefties, greenies are pushing the line that incandescent globes are BAD for the planet and CFL globes are GOOD for the planet. Well, there are 2 issues (and there are lots of others) that no one seems to be prepared to discuss:-

1) Who/which guvmint department is putting in place a safe way of disposing of CFL globes?  Seems to me that after November all the landfill sites are going to have a whole lot more mercury in them.  Now that's a really good plan.

2) I understand that whilst a 11W CFL only draws 11W (as stated on the lable), it actually requires around 22KVA because of their very poor power factor. You only get billed for the 11W, but the power station essentially has to generate twice that (the excess energy goes into heating the power lines). So .... which professor (I use that term loosely) did the cost benefit analysis on changing from incandescent to CFL globes? Does anyone really know that this is a good plan - higher energy and material input into CFL globes, more generating capacity required at the coal face (ie more CO2), and significant disposal problems?

This plan may yield a lower consumer electricity bill in the short term but watch out what happens when the power generators and distributors find that it is costing them more to generate and transmit electricity. They will probably start charging you for Volt-Amps rather than Watts. And your rubbish bill from the local council may well increase.

I am yet to see any sensible analysis or explanation of this plan from guvmint, which leads me to suspect it may well be a crock of............ 

If you want to read up on this topic, here is a good site to visit that has in depth analysis of all of the issues relating to CFLs.
http://sound.westhost.com/articles/incandescent.htm


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 June 2009)

Don't have time for a detailed post right now. But in short, correct about the CFL's drawing more current since many do have a power factor around 0.5 although I should point out it's 22VA not 22KVA unless you're counting every light in every house in the street.

As for charging, well charging for VA is already done for non-residential customers to some extent so nothing new there.

Generally speaking, your utility would like you to have a power factor of at least 0.8 and there are sound technical and economic reasons for this. It's actually a supply condition in a lot of cases.


----------



## Buddy (17 June 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> Don't have time for a detailed post right now. But in short, correct about the CFL's drawing more current since many do have a power factor around 0.5 although I should point out it's 22VA not 22KVA unless you're counting every light in every house in the street.
> 
> As for charging, well charging for VA is already done for non-residential customers to some extent so nothing new there.
> 
> Generally speaking, your utility would like you to have a power factor of at least 0.8 and there are sound technical and economic reasons for this. It's actually a supply condition in a lot of cases.




Yes, smurf, you're correct. VA not KVA. I'm not used to dealing with such small numbers. Thanks for your comments, I was hoping you could provide a comment. I guess if CFL usage becomes large then there may be some impact on the grid but I am yet to see any detailed analysis of this, and whether that would spur on utilities to charge residential customers for VA. Although I believe steps are being taken to improve the PF on CFLs.


My real point in posting this is that there does not appear to be any proper cost/benefit analysis to this whole approach. At least, I havn't seen anything coming from government. And I certialy dont call the stuff put out by the advertising/marketing geeks, a proper complete cycle cost/benefit analysis.  My gut feel is that although CFLs have their place, simply banning incandescent and virtually demanding everyone switch to CFL (And yes,  I am aware of halogen and LED solutions), is not a well thought out plan. Especially when driven by pollies and their bureaucrats. It's similar to their ill thought out plan with the ETS TAX; shoot from the hip first and forget about where the real solutions are going to come from.  Seems to me they get everything arsx about face; instead of working at the solution end, why not beat the living daylights out of the status quo.


----------



## Buddy (17 June 2009)

Below is the USA EPA recommended procedure for cleaning up a broken CFL. Huh? How many other products like this do you have in your home? 



*Cleanup and Disposal Guidelines
For Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs (CFLs)
June 2008​*
*What precautions should I take when using CFLs in my home?*CFLs are made of glass and can break if dropped or roughly handled. Be careful when removing the bulb from its packaging, installing it, or replacing it. Always screw and unscrew the light bulb by its base (not the glass), and never forcefully twist the CFL into a light socket. If a CFL breaks in your home, follow the clean-up recommendations below. Used CFLs should be disposed of properly (see below).

*What should I do with a CFL when it burns out?*EPA recommends that consumers take advantage of available local recycling options for compact fluorescent light bulbs. EPA is working with CFL manufacturers and major U.S. retailers to expand recycling and disposal options. Consumers can contact their local municipal solid waste agency directly, or go to www.epa.gov/bulbrecycling or www.earth911.org to identify local recycling options.

If your state or local environmental regulatory agency permits you to put used or broken CFLs in the garbage, seal the bulb in two plastic bags and put it into the outside trash, or other protected outside location, for the next normal trash collection. Never send a fluorescent light bulb or any other mercury-containing product to an incinerator.

If your ENERGY STAR qualified CFL product burns out before it should, look at the CFL base to find the manufacturer’s name. Visit the manufacturer’s web site to find the customer service contact information to inquire about a refund or replacement. Manufacturers producing ENERGY STAR qualified CFLs are required to offer at least a two-year limited warranty (covering manufacturer defects) for CFLs used at home. In the future, save your receipts to document the date of purchase.

*How should I clean up a broken fluorescent bulb?*Because CFLs contain a small amount of mercury, EPA recommends the following clean-up and disposal guidelines:
1. Before Clean-up: Air Out the Room
• Have people and pets leave the room, and don't let anyone walk through the breakage area on their way out.
• Open a window and leave the room for 15 minutes or more.
• Shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system, if you have one.​
2. Clean-Up Steps for Hard Surfaces
• Carefully scoop up glass fragments and powder using stiff paper or cardboard and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.
• Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass pieces and powder.
• Wipe the area clean with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes. Place towels in the glass jar or plastic bag.
• Do not use a vacuum or broom to clean up the broken bulb on hard surfaces.​
3. Clean-up Steps for Carpeting or Rug:
• Carefully pick up glass fragments and place them in a glass jar with metal lid (such as a canning jar) or in a sealed plastic bag.
• Use sticky tape, such as duct tape, to pick up any remaining small glass fragments and powder.
• If vacuuming is needed after all visible materials are removed, vacuum the area where the bulb was broken.
• Remove the vacuum bag (or empty and wipe the canister), and put the bag or vacuum debris in a sealed plastic bag.​
4. Clean-up Steps for Clothing, Bedding, etc.:
• If clothing or bedding materials come in direct contact with broken glass or mercury-containing powder from inside the bulb that may stick to the fabric, the clothing or bedding should be thrown away. Do not wash such clothing or bedding because mercury fragments in the clothing may contaminate the machine and/or pollute sewage.
• You can, however, wash clothing or other materials that have been exposed to the mercury vapor from a broken CFL, such as the clothing you are wearing when you cleaned up the broken CFL, as long as that clothing has not come into direct contact with the materials from the broken bulb.
• If shoes come into direct contact with broken glass or mercury-containing powder from the bulb, wipe them off with damp paper towels or disposable wet wipes. Place the towels or wipes in a glass jar or plastic bag for disposal.​
5. Disposal of Clean-up Materials
• Immediately place all clean-up materials outdoors in a trash container or protected area for the next normal trash pickup.
• Wash your hands after disposing of the jars or plastic bags containing clean-up materials.
• Check with your local or state government about disposal requirements in your specific area. Some states do not allow such trash disposal. Instead, they require that broken and unbroken mercury-containing bulbs be taken to a local recycling center.​
6. Future Cleaning of Carpeting or Rug: Air Out the Room During and After Vacuuming
• The next several times you vacuum, shut off the central forced-air heating/air conditioning system and open a window before vacuuming.
• Keep the central heating/air conditioning system shut off and the window open for at least 15 minutes after vacuuming is completed.​
For more information about compact fluorescent bulbs, visit http://www.energystar.gov/cfls
For more information about compact fluorescent bulbs and mercury, visit http://www.energystar.gov/mercury


----------



## Agentm (17 June 2009)

i read this thread and i get a huge laugh out of it, its total nonsense..

you can tell a flock of sheep anything and they will believe it

i wish folk would wake up to this garbage carbon debate..

it doesnt even rate as a story in this tiny nation of australia.. 

australia is a mere drop in the ocean, its just a means to double tax everyone.

i hear this clown on tv getting every reporter to ask him questions, he claims the world is about to end unless something is done..  polar caps are melting, and the oceans will rise, and apparently the worlds temperatures are rising. and most plebs just sit there and believe this nonsense and we are to believe that should this be happening that anything we do will have huge impacts and great benefits to the future of the world. 

as if anything we do will impact anything!!  


they claim australia has to reduce their emissions, immediately, and like twice as fast, and before the world ends..  but the global industrial companies continue to pile into china as a safe haven.. and each year china will emit more carbon, equivalent to what say germany would emit per year is what china will add each year.

*now to make each and every australian responsible for a double tax whilst deliberately ignoring where the carbon growth is really coming from makes a mockery of the argument in favor of emissions reduction*. stop investing in china, and make that county contract and it would solve the worlds emissions problems entirely.

our output is not where the world should be pointing to for reductions, the places where it really can make a difference is china, so start there and you would have the opportunity to make an minimal impact if you believe the story, but targeting the australian tax payers to fight global carbon emissions is the wrong place full stop..

if you believe the carbon argument then you need to start looking hard at where all this carbon growth is coming from.. act fast act early and make china a country that is responsible to the environment right now, or kiss you green planet good bye if you swallow this whole carbon/global warming scam..  



“According to this paper by two researchers at the University of California carbon dioxide emissions in China are projected to grow between 11.05% and 13.19% per year for the period 2000-2010. What does this mean? I hope you are sitting down because you won’t believe this.

In 2006 China’s carbon dioxide emissions contained about 1.70 gigatons of carbon (GtC) (source). By 2010, at the growth rates projected by these researchers the annual emissions from China will be between 2.6 and 2.8 GtC. The growth in China’s emissions from 2006-2010 is equivalent to adding the 2004 emissions of Japan, Germany, United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia to China’s 2006 total (source). The emissions growth in China at these rates is like adding another Germany every year, or a UK and Australia together, to global emissions. The graph below illustrates the point.


----------



## Sith1s (17 June 2009)

Thankyou AgentM!!!

You have just taken the time to reply my exact same thoughts.

Australia doing anything at all and reducing our emissions would be the equivalent of me p**sing in the the river to try and stop our drought.

Until China, India & the US decide to do anything all we are doing is making our industries even less competitive than what they already are!

This topic really just irritates me....

** end rant **


----------



## Happy (17 June 2009)

Just doesn't make sense for little bug to get ahead of the whole herd of elephants.


----------



## ronnieling (17 June 2009)

Happy said:


> Just doesn't make sense for little bug to get ahead of the whole herd of elephants.




Agree but at the same time, change has to start somewhere. Australia is a wealthy, developed nation and is well positioned to take the first steps in cutting emissions.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GA8z7f7a2Pk

While AgentMs point is very valid, look instead at per capita emissions. Australians have a per capita carbon footprint 5x greater than the Chinese. What happens when economic growth in China and India reaches all corners of those countries and every man, woman and child in South and North Asia starts pissing in the proverbial carbon river at the rate we are now? 

If we (the first world) develop the technologies and efficiencies required to cut our emissions, these technologies can be applied in the developing world so they're never in a position where they have to cut emissions. We all understand how painful and slow that process can be.

If we do nothing and allow India and China to industrialize in the same manner we have, and the doomsdayers are correct, you can take your pick of alarmist Greenpeace scaremonger scenarios...


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 June 2009)

ronnieling said:


> If we do nothing and allow India and China to industrialize in the same manner we have, and the doomsdayers are correct, you can take your pick of alarmist Greenpeace scaremonger scenarios...



One of my biggest fears is that if we make Australian industry less competitive and it moves offshore, and our energy intensive smelters etc are ONLY here for cheap power, then that in itself greatly helps China's industrialisation and consequent consumption growth.

There's a very real chance we end up turning Australia into a Third World country - we're pretty close as it is with such heavy reliance on agriculture and unprocessed minerals. The energy intensive industries are one of the few things that maintain our First World economic status - they employ few but are massive earners of wealth for this country. Even in "green" Tasmania, energy-intensive processing accounts for around half the state's exports.

Then if we end up making the present Third World countries wealthier, well it's game over for any hope of cutting emissions until the coal really does run out given their massive populations.


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 June 2009)

Buddy said:


> Yes, smurf, you're correct. VA not KVA. I'm not used to dealing with such small numbers. Thanks for your comments, I was hoping you could provide a comment. I guess if CFL usage becomes large then there may be some impact on the grid but I am yet to see any detailed analysis of this, and whether that would spur on utilities to charge residential customers for VA. Although I believe steps are being taken to improve the PF on CFLs.



They used to have a PF of typically 0.37 to 0.43, that being the uncorrected power factor of a ferromagnetic ballast as was used in the early CFL's (1980's and into the 1990's).

Then they went to typically 0.8 to 0.95 PF with the electronic models.

Now the cheap ones are commonly around 0.5 PF.

For all the non-electrical people, in layman's terms what this means is that with a lower power factor (PF) a device draws more current than it ought to. So something that draws 1 Amp from the mains with a PF of 1.0 will draw 2 Amps to do the exact same thing if it has a PF of 0.5. And so on.

My own view is that for some uses CFL's do make sense but for others they are totally pointless both economically and environmentally (even if considered purely in terms of CO2). So I've stocked up on incandescents for those uses where CFL's don't make sense and will be using those until LED's are affordable for domestic lighting.


----------



## ronnieling (17 June 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> There's a very real chance we end up turning Australia into a Third World country - we're pretty close as it is with such heavy reliance on agriculture and unprocessed minerals. The energy intensive industries are one of the few things that maintain our First World economic status - they employ few but are massive earners of wealth for this country. Even in "green" Tasmania, energy-intensive processing accounts for around half the state's exports.
> 
> Then if we end up making the present Third World countries wealthier, well it's game over for any hope of cutting emissions until the coal really does run out given their massive populations.




I agree to an extent about moving industries offshore but I think alot of your other sentiment is misguided.

Energy intensive industries like mining and agriculture make up alot of our EXPORTS but still consist of less than 11% of our economy. First world countries like Australia are built on the services sector (~70% of our GDP). You'll struggle to offshore that sector and at any rate, not due to climate change.

Furthermore, using Tasmania as a microcosm, energy-intensity doesn't necessarily equate to better economic outcomes. Job and economic growth in Tasmania is being driven by an increasingly educated workforce with more uni grads. Not through the five big refineries. Policy from the Bartlett government is to begin to shift from these industries, increase education and identify new opportunities which are coming out of climate change. Clinging onto energy intensive industries to save jobs in the short term will leave Australia behind as other industrialized countries adapt. The challenge for government shouldn't be whether or not we move on from energy-intensive industry but how we can mitigate the near term economic shock in doing so.

The crux of economic development since the industrial revolution is in efficiency - greater labour productivity yields higher standards of living. I think in the next century, within a carbon constrained global economy, we will see, and to an extent have already seen, a paradigm shift toward greater carbon productivity in economies. The textbook economic problem is going to be redefined and answered not only in terms of land, labour and capital but also in terms of carbon.


----------



## basilio (19 June 2009)

How many people actually "get" what climate change means - particularly if it gets to a runaway stage ?

This is not a new subject. Our best and brightest scientist identified  over 30 years ago that the earth was warming and that, aside from other issues, man produced  CO2 emissions were the cause of the warming. 

Since the 1980's when we had the first really big awakenings the research and physical evidence has become clearer and clearer.  Unfortunately we are now tracking at the highest predicted levels of global warming.

I don't want to repeat the observations I re GW in other forums. But I thought in this forum at least the readers  hadn't allowed themselves to fooled by the fossil fool industry conmen. 

There is a  "latest" report out . I have posted it below.  We now have very little time to turn this ship around. 



> SIZE="4"]Rising ocean temperatures near worst-case predictions[/SIZE]
> Adam Morton
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## --B-- (19 June 2009)

basilio said:


> How many people actually "get" what climate change means - particularly if it gets to a runaway stage




we all get it basilio.

those of us who are yet to be convinced simply ask for evidence. 


> This is not a new subject. Our best and brightest scientist identified  over 30 years ago that the earth was warming and that, aside from other issues, man produced  CO2 emissions were the cause of the warming.



best and brightest? lol

please provide evidence of the assertion that the 'cause' was 'identified' as being man made co2.



> I don't want to repeat the observations I re GW in other forums. But I thought in this forum at least the readers  hadn't allowed themselves to fooled by the fossil fool industry conmen.



ahh we couldnt have a AGW hypist try to convince us all without the old "its all a con by big oil" doozy.

i simply seek evidence basilio. not scare campaingns promoted by greenies.



> There is a  "latest" report out . I have posted it below.  We now have very little time to turn this ship around.



quick quick!! lets tax plant food!

hey basilio, rather than relying on these hype pieces, i like to look at studies that actually use observation and proof.

like this one:


> Ocean heat content data from 2003 to 2008 (4.5 years) were evaluated for trend. A trend plus periodic (annual cycle) model fit with R2 = 0.85. The linear component of the model showed a trend of −0.35 ( ±0.2) Ã— 1022 Joules per year. *The result is consistent with other data showing a lack of warming over the past few years. *



http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene/2009/00000020/F0020001/art00008

while youre here, im wondering if you minght like to have an attempt at answering the questions Fielding put to Penny wong recently,, the questions she and her 'best and brightest' scientists stumbled over:


> QUESTION 1.
> 
> Is it the case that CO2 increased by 5% since 1998 whilst global temperature cooled over the same period (see Fig. 1)?
> If so, why did the temperature not increase; and how can human emissions be to blame for dangerous levels of warming?
> ...


----------



## Sith1s (19 June 2009)

What about using a bit of common sense.

Can most of us can agree that Australia is just a drop in the ocean in regards to the effect we have on the global polluting stage?

If the above question is yes and we are assuming that the 3 big polluters will continue to ignore everyone and do as they please.

How about, instead of wasting all this money on introducing these new taxes and schemes and building windmills ect we spend the money on equipment to deal with the effects of the increasing causes.

EG more fire trucks to deal with fighting the bush fires caused by drought.  Build more dams, more desal plants ect...

Or is this just too much common sense for anyone....


That is of course, assuming that there actually is global warming and it's not just the modern day version of the Emperors New Clothes..


----------



## --B-- (19 June 2009)

oh and basilio, heres another interesting graph re: ocean warming


----------



## Happy (19 June 2009)

--B-- said:


> oh and basilio, heres another interesting graph re: ocean warming





Doesn't seem to follow the prediction.


----------



## Calliope (19 June 2009)

If Wong and her advisers can't answer Fielding's simple questions in relation to whether we and our CO2 emissions are responsible for climate change or not, it appears that Rudd and Wong want us to accept all their warnings on blind faith.

The idea that we can alter the climate is nonsense. Emissions trading is the biggest left wing scare campaign perpetrated on the people since communism, and by similar unscrupulous people.


----------



## roysolder (19 June 2009)

just my two bits but how can we all save in heating costs if we are a few degrees warmer in winter? 
i reckon you can not stop changinginging our wicked little ways for the better of man kind(person kind to be pc) lol but truth is folks no one can prove anything.is it just a thousand year cyclic  thing?if some one  knows any diff i believe from my knowledge we have increased 0.3 of a degree in 140 years!
lets crap our pants and panic.nz is having a colder winter this year.is someone going to make some money out of all this ****e,or keep us underlings worried about yet another pending non existant doom to come.

"the world has been around for a long time,and still will be"


----------



## Agentm (19 June 2009)

imho the data on the antarctic shows more cooling over the entire region than any warming, despite the years of data being put out in a totally false way the cold fact remains its getting cooler down there

re the global temp rise and co2, its just a story filled with hot air








my personal view on the air temp and climate is that the sea temp is the primary driver of climate conditions, the other major factor has to be the activity of the sun.. both those would have far more detectable impact on temperature over land masses over periods of time, these cycles always change.. nothing is constant


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 June 2009)

ronnieling said:


> Energy intensive industries like mining and agriculture make up alot of our EXPORTS but still consist of less than 11% of our economy. First world countries like Australia are built on the services sector (~70% of our GDP). You'll struggle to offshore that sector and at any rate, not due to climate change.
> 
> Furthermore, using Tasmania as a microcosm, energy-intensity doesn't necessarily equate to better economic outcomes. Job and economic growth in Tasmania is being driven by an increasingly educated workforce with more uni grads. Not through the five big refineries.



The service industry model is what's brought so much undone recently with the financial crisis. You don't create real wealth shuffling money - witness the transfer of global wealth to those carrying out actual physical production (eg China) away from the service economies.

As for Tasmania, it's been going down this track for nearly three decades now. Thus far, its service economy has failed miserably to deliver on overall economic performance and individual wages as any comparisson of Tasmania versus the other states during the 80's, 90's or 00's will clearly reveal. And yes, it must be said, the only time during the 20th Century that Tasmania consistently out performed the national average economically was during the peak of hydro-industrialisation.

Taking mining etc out of Australia is like taking the engine oil out of a car. Mining, as with the oil, seems like a rather trivial component but the whole lot comes crashing down without it. 

Lose the exports from energy intensive and other rurual type industries and the resultant currency collapse will wipe out the service industries there and then since the latter by definition lives off the surplus wealth created by the former. Note what's happening in the US, Zimbabwe or anywhere else that thought they could live forever on the international credit card - bottom line is either you produce goods at home, export something else in order to buy them with, or you go broke. 

So we've got to export something. If not minerals and energy-intensive things then what, exactly, do we export? Hot air?


----------



## bandicoot76 (20 June 2009)

according to scientists the earth started out as a flaming ball of gas and molten lava, since that time it has gone from ice age to a tropical climate countless times... a recent geological report estimated that at the time of the dinosaurs the earths temp was somehwere between 50 & 60 degrees C, traces of tomatoes growing were found in the artic circle by archeologists recently, greenland was named that as it was covered in lush grass at the time of the vikings... TO THINK THAT THE CLIMATE WILL REMAIN STAGNANT AT A TEMPERATURE THAT SUITS HUMANS IS BLOODY REDICULOUS! the climate constantly changes, the different gas concentrations in the atmosphere are determined to a large part by the oceans (the real 'lungs of the earth') the amount of temperate variation caused by AGW is miniscule (estimated at 0.07 of a degree by richard lidzen if i recall correctly) ...its easy to stump the AGW zealots, just ask them "well what is the average temp for the earth supposed to be?" ... i havnt been able to get a response yet!!!! we need to focus on sustainability & pollution control rather than be sidetracked by the money-machine that makes up the AGW religion... and if anyone tells me i cant eat meat they'll be measuring their height on the bl**dy ground!!!


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 June 2009)

This is what I'm worried about with industry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_current_account_balance

There are basically two countries running massive per capita current account deficits. Australia is one, the US is the other. Nobody else is accumulating such a massive debt as these two.

Now, is anyone game to argue that Australia won't follow the US path from here on?

It's pretty widely acknowledged now that manufacturing finished products in Australia isn't viable because others can do it far cheaper. In every state and indeed near every capital city there are countless abandoned factories that once produced goods we now import. Even the "too big to fail" car industry is slowly but surely joining the list.

Likewise a large portion of non-government jobs located in offices can be offshored far more easily than you might think. If they can be sent from Hobart to Melbourne as actually happened during the 80's and 90's then it's not much harder to send them to India. It's not just call centres, it's the entire administration apart from roles directly relating to customers face to face - and even they can be reduced by technology.

So what are we going to export? Surely we don't think that the rest of the world is going to keep sending cars, aeroplanes, fuel, consumer goods, electronics and just about everything else in return for absolutely nothing? They'll want something back sooner or later.

Which leaves us with agriculture, mining and the only sort of manufacturing we seem to be competitive at - energy-intensive processing. 

Education? Well it works now having that as an export industry. But surely nobody believes that the Chinese etc won't set up their own universitys sooner or later rather than keep coming here. Of course they will.

Health? Well you can't really offshore the local GP, but we can't really export that either. Any country where people can afford to pay, has their own doctors etc. 

IT? Again it's largely imported hardware and apart from hardware-based physical things, the rest can be offshored just like anything else.

Tourism? Well that's an export, sort of. American planes running on fuel from Vietnam are a big import. But overseas visitors here are, financially, an export as far as bringing in money is concerned. But we're going to need an awful lot more tourists to pay this country's import bill that way. The sort of visitor numbers that aren't a small increase, but are beyond anyone's wildest dreams at the moment. (And then there's all that CO2 from aircraft...).

Bottom line is I just don't see it. We're left with agriculture, mining, energy-intensive processing, tourism and a few niche manufacturing operations as far as exports are concerned. Everything else is either too small to matter, isn't readily exportable anyway or is easily able to be offshored.

A case in point is what I've been doing over the past few days. Went to Melbourne on holidays. Now, some will point to this boosting GDP which is certainly true. But let's have a look at what it does to the balance of payments:

Drive to airport in a Japanese car running on imported petrol.

Flew to Melbourne in an American plane, also running on imported fuel.

Spent money at hotels, shops and so on. There would be a component of imports there, such as goods I bought in shops or equipment used in the hotel.

Came back again in an American plane etc.

Now, every single step of this sent money offshore in some way. Even the trains in Melbourne are (I'm told) now manufactured by a foreign company. Sure, I've added to GDP to circulate amongst ourselves but there's a constant drain heading offshore. 

It's like swimming in a pool when someone's pulled the plug - splashing about will create some activity yes, but it doesn't change the fact that the pool will be empty at some point if there's more going out than coming in.

What are we going to do to bring some money back into Australia? Or are we just going to keep mortgaging the future, something that spells disaster as least as much as climate change if we allow it to happen? 

Hence I'm none too keen on offshoring the few viable export industries we've got unless there's outright proof that foreigners will indeed support us forever - and there's not much chance of that happening, they'll want payment at some point (witness China's apparent threats to the US recently).

If we get this wrong then we'll either stuff the planet through CO2 or we'll stuff it trying to survive after we've gone broke. Take a look at any poor Third World country - they aren't exactly going to stop pollution or protect anything when they need every cent they can get no matter what the consequences. I'd rather we didn't head that way in Australia simply so we can take some high moral stand whilst our industry heads offshore only to pollute there instead. Principles? Yes, but not to the point of ruining the entire country...


----------



## Agentm (21 June 2009)

bandicoot76 said:


> according to scientists the earth started out as a flaming ball of gas and molten lava, since that time it has gone from ice age to a tropical climate countless times... a recent geological report estimated that at the time of the dinosaurs the earths temp was somehwere between 50 & 60 degrees C, traces of tomatoes growing were found in the artic circle by archeologists recently, greenland was named that as it was covered in lush grass at the time of the vikings... TO THINK THAT THE CLIMATE WILL REMAIN STAGNANT AT A TEMPERATURE THAT SUITS HUMANS IS BLOODY REDICULOUS! the climate constantly changes, the different gas concentrations in the atmosphere are determined to a large part by the oceans (the real 'lungs of the earth') the amount of temperate variation caused by AGW is miniscule (estimated at 0.07 of a degree by richard lidzen if i recall correctly) ...its easy to stump the AGW zealots, just ask them "well what is the average temp for the earth supposed to be?" ... i havnt been able to get a response yet!!!! we need to focus on sustainability & pollution control rather than be sidetracked by the money-machine that makes up the AGW religion... and if anyone tells me i cant eat meat they'll be measuring their height on the bl**dy ground!!!




earth has been around for 4.7 bilion years, the last few seconds in terms of time has seen lifeforms on it.

you know the less serious gasses are carbondioxide in terms of trapping heat, all gasses trap heat, some do it better than others, 

i run a compost system, which enriches the soil, it also produces carbon dioxide..

now methane is 21 times more able to retain heat than co2,  so i expect to see greenpeace activists chained to my compost bin very shortly..

lets examine another gas. nitros oxide, now thats 310 times more efficient than methane.. and guess what gas worm produce!.. so now i expect the use of true greenpeace tactics on my compost bin.. things like acid cannisters on my back deck lobbed over the fence by greenpeace terrorists on bikes.. maybe i will find a massive tripod built over my yard and greenpeace throwing spears at me if i come close to that bin..

the more efficient gases,  like certain trace gases like fluorocarbons used industrially are more than 1000 times as potent as carbon dioxide at trapping heat..

_Is the earth warming? Yes, the earth is recovering from the "Little Ice Age." We have enjoyed two centuries of intermittent recovery from the bitter cold which the American Founding Fathers suffered through. However, the warming earth has not yet reached the temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period or the Roman Warm Period. Northern Europe enjoyed bumper crops during the Medieval Warm Period, the population tripled and European civilization revived. Europe had suffering a Dark Age during a time of cooling but civilization revived late in the subsequent warming phase. When a new cycle of global cooling began in the fourteenth century, the mild, relatively stable weather of Europe during the Medieval Warm Period gave way to fierce storms, flooding and famine._


----------



## Agentm (24 June 2009)

Global warming isn't real, says Senator Fielding
June 24, 2009 - 3:17PM

Family First Senator Steve Fielding has made up his mind on global warming - there's not enough evidence that it's real.

After talks with the Government and top scientists, Senator Fielding, who holds a crucial Senate vote, has released a document setting out his position.

"Global temperature isn't rising," it says.

On emissions trading, Senator Fielding said he wouldn't risk job losses on "unconvincing green science".

The document was prepared with the help of some of the country's most prominent climate-sceptic scientists.

It says it is a "fact" that the evidence does not support the notion that greenhouse gas emissions are causing dangerous global warming.

The Senate is due to debate emissions trading legislation this week.

The Government is struggling to muster enough votes to pass the legislation.

Senator Fielding's stance appears to torpedo the chance of the scheme passing as the Government would need his support, as well as that of the Greens and independent Nick Xenophon.

Otherwise, the Government would need the support of the Opposition to pass the scheme.


----------



## roysolder (24 June 2009)

just my two bits again,some countries never entered the kioto protocol because they either could,nt afford it..changing to environmentally friendly refrigerants on a big scale.some third world countries have a crappy old refrigerator they were probably lucky to come by and tell them it has to go!imagine the health issues if they could not replace it with the new "ozone friendly fridge" and the corro roof leaks.
cfc,s are clever really,they can find there way down to new zealand where the largest hole in the ozone layer is..just happens to be over a volcano spewing out sulpher.
just to add a little more,cfc,s are heavier than air so the clever little mites have built there own rocket to get up(25 miles) and attack the ozone layer some more.
my solution: plug the cows bot bots (eliminate methane)
                  go back to horse and kart ( reduce  co2 still a methane problem but refer to no 1)


----------



## spooly74 (24 June 2009)

roysolder said:


> cfc,s are clever really,they can find there way down to new zealand where the largest hole in the ozone layer is..just happens to be over a volcano spewing out sulpher.
> just to add a little more,cfc,s are heavier than air so the clever little mites have built there own rocket to get up(25 miles) and attack the ozone layer some more.



The science of CFC's is fully understood. There is no doubt that they cause damage to the ozone layer by mixing with Polar Stratospheric Clouds at high altitude. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_stratospheric_cloud


----------



## Onlooker (24 June 2009)

You may wish to watch http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfnF7ilVzeo&feature=player_embedded and Part 2 and Part 3.  I can't wait to get hold of the book "Heaven and Earth, Global Warming: The Missing Science"


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 June 2009)

It was pretty simple to replace CFC's with, in various applications, propane, butane, nitrogen, hydro-flurocarbons, CO2 and dry powders. The only real downside was cost and reduced energy efficiency in some applications (that is, higher CO2 emissions...).

But the CO2 problem is very different. It comes from ENERGY and that's the most absolutely all-pervasive thing there is and one with no easy answers. It's not as though we have a simple replacement that's almost as good as we did with CFC's. All we've got are things that cost a fortune, have all sorts of non-CO2 environmental downsides and are only a partial replacement anyway. 

It's a lot harder with the CO2 issue than it was with CFC's and that's the problem. If it were easy, nobody would be arguing about it.


----------



## wayneL (24 June 2009)

From http://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2009/04/18/kyotos-impact-on-atmospheric-co2/ (a very good blog BTW)

:::







As mentioned by Spliner in the videos posted above:


----------



## wayneL (24 June 2009)

Here's another interesting article:

http://www.gaia-technology.com/sa/newsletters/newsletters.cfm

Basically, there are not enough fossil fuel reserves to fulfil the IPCC's modelling assumptions.



> ...much of the output of the IPCC's models bears little relationship to the real world. With so much at stake, the least we can expect is for scientists and policymakers to make sure that they are using the right data. Garbage in, garbage out.




OOPS.

Also neatly skewers the ocean acidification argument.


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 June 2009)

wayneL said:


> Here's another interesting article:
> 
> http://www.gaia-technology.com/sa/newsletters/newsletters.cfm
> 
> Basically, there are not enough fossil fuel reserves to fulfil the IPCC's modelling assumptions.



Not enough fuel is precisely the real issue.

We might have a problem with CO2 at some point maybe, but we've already got a problem with oil production as many have been warning about for quite some time. Even with the economic troubles, we're still pumping almost as much as we can and selling it for $70 a barrel - that's not a sign of an abundant resource.

And even if we did have plenty, that it's mostly in the hands of very few countries is a problem in itself that demands attention. 

Oil - getting scarce now.

Gas - still plenty around but it's highly concentrated in Russia and the Middle East. Australia's reserves aren't so big once you consider how much we're planning to export. And we'll end up with international parity pricing at some point anyway (already slowly underway), such that local production becomes irrelevant in terms of local consumption costs and policy.

Coal - there's more of it that's for sure. But even there a lot is difficult to get at and it's still a fairly concentrated resource geographically (though it just happens that Australia has quite a bit so it's not a problem locally).

As I've said before, the real energy issue is going to be how to keep the wheels turning (oil) and what to do about gas once that becomes priced as a transport fuel - something that makes it too expensive for all those baseload gas-fired power plants some see as a solution to the CO2 issue. Both are problems in the lifetime of most here, not something that can wait a few decades.

Don't believe me? Then why the high oil price, international politics and wars over the stuff? Why the panic whenever Russia threatens gas supplies? Because most of the world doesn't have much of either...

Move away from oil and gas and there's a limit to how much CO2 we could prodduce anyway. Two problems fixed at once rather than a CO2-driven shift to even greater reliance on limited gas resources that won't likely work in the long term. 

A bit less CO2 now by using gas then we end up trying to liquefy and gassify coal to run all the oil/gas dependent infrastructure we built to try and avoid using coal? 

Or a gradual shift to sustainable energy with short term ongoing reliance on coal (plenty of it) that ultimately gets us to no CO2 and no need to worry about things running out?

The latter sounds like a more rational plan to me.

For those who disagree, please explain how we're going to get to the oil production levels implied in the IPCC calculations? It won't happen with known reserves and the past 45 years' rate of declining discovery that's for sure. Same with gas.


----------



## Wysiwyg (3 December 2009)

Here is great initiative by global warming enthusiasts. Not this Saturday but the following Saturday 12th, a walk against global warming takes place.


> President of ACF, chair of the first Australian State of the Environment Report in 1996 and referee for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Prof Ian Lowe AO will be at the Climate Summit in Copenhagen.
> He wants to see you at Walk against Warming on December 12th.




Here's why.  





> Follow the links below for more about Brisbane's Walk against Warming and how to send the Prime Minister a letter telling him that we want leadership for a safe climate.


----------



## BigWillieStyles (3 December 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> Here is great initiative by global warming enthusiasts. Not this Saturday but the following Saturday 12th, a walk against global warming takes place.
> 
> 
> Here's why.




Nice post.


----------



## alphaman (3 December 2009)

Am I missing something? Choice b looks obviously silly. 

"If" there is a problem that will impact us severely, we'd better try to correct it, regardless of cause.


----------



## Wysiwyg (3 December 2009)

alphaman said:


> Am I missing something? Choice b looks obviously silly.
> 
> "If" there is a problem that will impact us severely, we'd better try to correct it, regardless of cause.



You should know man's way. Cure is better than prevention.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (11 January 2012)

Global Warming Officially is OVER.

Read Imre Salusinszky in the Australian.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...g-global-warming/story-e6frg71o-1226241105031



> IF you are reading this on a train or a bus, I want you to lean across and shake the hand of the man or woman sitting next to you. Folks, we did it. We beat global warming.
> 
> Last year, at this time, I wrote of how global warming was already on the retreat in Australia because of the way humanity, for once, put aside its differences and acted in unison.
> 
> ...




gg


----------



## Julia (11 January 2012)

You beat me to putting up Imre's remarks.   Succinct and funny.


----------



## Logique (12 January 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Global Warming Officially is OVER.
> Read Imre Salusinszky in the Australian.
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...g-global-warming/story-e6frg71o-1226241105031
> gg



The Greens are in shock. Their usual tactics didn't work, despite the 'Love Media' SMH and the ABC working overtime. Something of a first. 

In central NSW, in mid-Jan, here are the forecast maxima tempC for the next 4 days: 22, 25, 23, 23.


----------



## Calliope (12 January 2012)

Logique said:


> The Greens are in shock. Their usual tactics didn't work, despite the 'Love Media' SMH and the ABC working overtime. Something of a first.
> 
> In central NSW, in mid-Jan, here are the forecast maxima tempC for the next 4 days: 22, 25, 23, 23.




Canberra's minimum last night was *1.6 degrees.*


----------



## OzWaveGuy (12 January 2012)

Calliope said:


> Canberra's minimum last night was *1.6 degrees.*




It was like a winter's night. I had some guests over and I almost considered putting the heating on.


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 January 2012)

OzWaveGuy said:


> It was like a winter's night. I had some guests over and I almost considered putting the heating on.



Cold here in Tas too and I did actually have the heating on. It was 30 degrees a few days earlier though and it's forecast to get up to 29 next week.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (12 January 2012)

Calliope said:


> Canberra's minimum last night was *1.6 degrees.*






OzWaveGuy said:


> It was like a winter's night. I had some guests over and I almost considered putting the heating on.




It's all over red rover.

Could someone start an "end of global warming and the greatest hoax" thread, so that we can all celebrate.

Al Gore has been conspicuously silent, then he has made his millions already from the dopey bastards who believed him.

And that's not to mention the neutrino.

gg


----------



## Knobby22 (12 January 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> It's all over red rover.
> 
> Al Gore  he has made his millions.
> 
> gg




Did he short insurance shares?

Weather disasters all over the world . Obvious thing to do.


----------



## wayneL (12 January 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> Weather disasters all over the world .




As it always has done and always will


----------



## macca (13 January 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> Cold here in Tas too and I did actually have the heating on. It was 30 degrees a few days earlier though and it's forecast to get up to 29 next week.




I know it is hot over in the west but Gee, I would like at least one week of summer before autumn arrives 

<Taralga (1.1 °), Canberra (1.6 °), Katoomba (4.2 °) and Parkes (6.8 °) all recorded their lowest January temperatures in more than 50 years.>

http://www.weatherzone.com.au/news/new-south-wales-endures-coolest-january-day-in-28-years/19994


----------



## pixel (5 January 2015)

To those 10% who refuse to believe in Science, here is a bit of empirical evidence:

For the past several years, we've had a desktop thermometer that displays the temperature inside and outside. It also keeps min and max of both. The outside temperature is collected by a sensor and transmitted at regular intervals in the wifi GHz range.

*This afternoon, our outside temperature sensor got fried.* When I put the indoor unit on the pergola table, it went up to 47.7 degrees C. Obviously a new heat record.

*FACE the FACTS, Mr Abbott! Or face the consequences!* As a self-proclaimed Christian, you should be concerned about the afterlife. Think about the camel squeezing through the eye of a needle. And then think about the questions you may be asked at the Pearly Gates. "Oh, you were convinced it's all a natural cycle. Here, take the lift down. It's all very natural down there too..."


----------



## Tisme (5 January 2015)

pixel said:


> As a self-proclaimed Christian, you should be concerned about the afterlife. Think about the camel squeezing through the eye of a needle. And then think about the questions you may be asked at the Pearly Gates. "Oh, you were convinced it's all a natural cycle. Here, take the lift down. It's all very natural down there too..."




Yeah but, yeah but, yeah the only thing is that as a devote Christian nature and God are one in the same so turning up the heat is divine intervention.


----------



## macca (5 January 2015)

Without full global cooperation from Every nation then anything we do here is completely futile.

Every time we force a business to manufacture overseas through extra costs, we make the situation worse. Our factories are much "cleaner" than the vast majority overseas, witness the often published photos of Chinese and Indian cities, the more they make the worse it gets.

In the Southern Hemisphere nature uses more Co2 than is produced, we actually need Co2 from the Northern Hemisphere or we a have a natural disaster on our hands.

IMO pollution is a far more pressing problem and it is sooooo obvious, why does everyone ignore the obvious, beats me


----------



## pixel (5 January 2015)

Tisme said:


> Yeah but, yeah but, yeah the only thing is that as a devote Christian nature and God are one in the same so turning up the heat is divine intervention.




okay, okay, if you believe that:where do I send my compensation claim for malicious damage to my outdoor sensor?
To the GG as legal representative of the Head of Anglican Church?
To the Pope as the Catholic shop front of their God?
The Chief Rabbi or Pharisee that acts on behalf of Eli?
Any of the Imams or Muftis that assure us it's All Allah's Will?

Methinks there ought to be a course "How to Run a Universe, 101" and all the above ought to attend.


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 January 2015)

macca said:


> Every time we force a business to manufacture overseas through extra costs, we make the situation worse. Our factories are much "cleaner" than the vast majority overseas, witness the often published photos of Chinese and Indian cities, the more they make the worse it gets.



+1

Two examples, Newcastle NSW and Burnie Tas.

We stopped pollution from the Newcastle steel works very effectively. Newcastle no longer has a steel works. It does, however, have among the biggest coal export ports in the world. Instead of using the coal locally and reasonably cleanly, now we just ship it overseas (more pollution from the ships) for someone else to burn.

We stopped the once infamous pollution at Burnie too. No more brown foam rolling up the beach and acrid water, no more sulphuric acid raining down on everything, no more plumes of white smoke billowing into the air, no more brightly coloured water and everything else coloured white from a different factory just around the bend either. But that's not because production became cleaner, hell no, it's because Burnie no longer has any major factories. They're gone, the whole lot. Gone. Where Tioxide once stood is now an abandoned field. The acid plant has long since given way to a freight depot on the site. And there's a new Bunnings store, selling mostly imported goods, on part of the site where "the pulp" used to be. The most endangered thing in Burnie these days isn't nature, it's full time employment.

Only today I came across an old TV. Seems to seems to work as such but useless now that the analogue signal is switched off. Reading the label on the back tells the story - "Made in Australia" it says. The factory was in Adelaide I think (not certain on that point, think it was there), long gone now of course along with just about every other factory we ever had.

All we've really done is clean up the backyard by throwing the rubbish over the fence and leaving the neighbours to deal with it. It hasn't gone as such, just been moved.


----------



## sptrawler (6 January 2015)

Smurf1976 said:


> +1
> 
> Two examples, Newcastle NSW and Burnie Tas.
> 
> ...




Yes and now the neighbors have lost their jobs, it is going to be a whole lot harder to support the needy.

Absolute stupidity, wish someone could legislate that politicians pensions weren't Government guaranteed.

I feel nauseous when I think of what has been done, in recent history, our political standard has fallen to appalling levels.
IMO It has gone the way of education, it is a job for perks, rather than a career of calling.

Why can't politicians, put Australia, before themselves?

My first rant of the year.


----------



## orr (6 January 2015)

I've stumbled upon the '*Abbott Government - Industry and Employment, How Valid? How Serious?'* 

The above few posts concluded; not very.

Steven Chu's Address to the National press club a couple of weeks back conflates this threads title and concerns noted here.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-10/national-press-club-dr-steven-chu/5958136


----------



## SirRumpole (17 January 2015)

Labor, Greens pressure Tony Abbott to act on climate change as 2014 named hottest year on record

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-...bbott-as-2014-named-hottest-on-record/6023162


----------



## moXJO (18 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Labor, Greens pressure Tony Abbott to act on climate change as 2014 named hottest year on record
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-...bbott-as-2014-named-hottest-on-record/6023162




Unless Abbott engineers a disease that wipes out 3/4 of the population then its all just bs pandering with little effect globally. Bigger nations need to act in unison.

If we were taxed and the money stayed in Australia to shore up defenses against future    
climate change in preparedness of a worsening outcome, I wouldn't mind as much.

But as for the circle jerking carbon tax they had in, no thanks.


----------



## Julia (18 January 2015)

moXJO said:


> Unless Abbott engineers a disease that wipes out 3/4 of the population then its all just bs pandering with little effect globally. Bigger nations need to act in unison.
> 
> If we were taxed and the money stayed in Australia to shore up defenses against future
> climate change in preparedness of a worsening outcome, I wouldn't mind as much.
> ...



+1.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 January 2015)

moXJO said:


> If we were taxed and the money stayed in Australia to shore up defenses against future
> climate change in preparedness of a worsening outcome, I wouldn't mind as much.




Maybe the pink batt scheme, as poorly implemented as it was, was designed to do just that, insulate us against the increasing severe heatwaves.


----------



## sydboy007 (18 January 2015)

pixel said:


> *FACE the FACTS, Mr Abbott! Or face the consequences!* As a self-proclaimed Christian, you should be concerned about the afterlife. Think about the camel squeezing through the eye of a needle. And then think about the questions you may be asked at the Pearly Gates. "Oh, you were convinced it's all a natural cycle. Here, take the lift down. It's all very natural down there too..."




Abbott is similar to the Christian right in the US where they:

* Don't believe man could in any way harms God's creation
* Believe God gave man dominion over the planet to do with as we want
* Look forward to their blessed life with God after they shed their earthly body, so they don't really care what actually happens in this life time.


----------



## sydboy007 (18 January 2015)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> It's all over red rover.
> 
> Could someone start an "end of global warming and the greatest hoax" thread, so that we can all celebrate.
> 
> ...




I suppose the actual facts shouldn't get in the way of a good conspiracy GG?

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


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Maybe the pink batt scheme, as poorly implemented as it was, was designed to do just that, insulate us against the increasing severe heatwaves.




In principle, insulation makes a lot of sense for any building that is heated or cooled on a regular basis. No real argument there. Put it in once and, if done properly, you get an ongoing cost saving for the life of the building.

The trouble with the government's scheme is the same issue that I've referred to in various threads about the NBN, energy industry and other things. 

In short, if you've got a heap of contractors running around unsupervised with taxpayers footing the bill then that's as close as you'll ever get to having an actual license to print money. It's not really a "private enterprise" when you're using taxpayer funds to run it, it's not even close since none of the usual checks and balances don't apply when the person receiving the product isn't directly paying a cent for it and may not be overly concerned about its' quality anyway (apart from low income earners and rentals, anyone else who actually wanted insulation would have installed it years ago).

Much the same happens with a lot of taxpayer funded work. It's fine when its' practical to check the quality, or for that matter that the job has been done at all, but that fails when we're talking about things hidden inside roofs (insulation) or underground (NBN).

What they should have done, in order to make it work, was to (1) allow only those businesses already involved with installing insulation at the time of the scheme's announcement to participate (2) allowed only the use of materials from an approved list to be used and (3) conducted random inspections of the work done with penalties applied where defective work is found and (4) spread the work over a reasonable time period of up to 5 years.

Such an arrangement would have got the job done by legitimate insulation contractors, using quality materials and without the disaster that resulted.

As for climate change, well I know this is weather not climate as such but I sure wouldn't mind a bit of warming around here right now. 14 degrees outside at the moment and blowing a gale. At least the sun's out but it's ridiculously cold for Summer. Another 10 degrees would be just nice.


----------



## moXJO (18 January 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Maybe the pink batt scheme, as poorly implemented as it was, was designed to do just that, insulate us against the increasing severe heatwaves.




Poorly is the right word. A lot of it wouldn't be providing much of a rating today. I still get to see a lot of this stuff weekly and its cheap imported rubbish stuffed into ceilings.


----------



## noco (11 February 2015)

*Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From?



Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better!
If you've read his book you will agree, this is a good summary.

PLIMER: "Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland . Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.



Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - it’s that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.



I know....it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet

tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat,

vacationing at home instead of abroad.  Nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cent light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs.....well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.



The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY.



I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.  Yes, folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over One year - think about it.



Of course, I shouldn't spoil this 'touchy-feely tree-hugging' moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.



And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year. 



Just remember that your government just tried to

impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus 'human-caused' climate-change scenario.



Hey, isn’t it interesting how they don’t mention

'Global Warming' anymore, but just'Climate Change'- you know why? It’s because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.



And, just keep in mind that you might yet have an

Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer.  It won’t stop any volcanoes from erupting, that’s for sure.



But, hey, relax...... and have a nice day :>)"

And the Green/Labor left wing socialist want to bring a Carbon Tax which will add another impost on the cost of living. OMG.








*


----------



## pixel (11 February 2015)

noco said:


> *Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From?
> 
> Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better!
> 
> *




Every once in a while, a university - even one of the "World's Best", so they claim - gets it wrong and awards someone a professorship, who, after closer scrutiny and with the benefit of hindsight, maybe should have failed a few steps on the way.

Every once in a while, a lecturer with some grounding in one subject - say, mineralogy - considers her/himself sufficiently competent in another field that - to the dabbling lay person - appears closely enough related. Let's face it, most lay persons will view all subjects that have an "-ology" in their name as near enough identical. Likewise, subjects with "-matics", etc.

Prof *emeritus *Plimer seems to fall into the "-ology" category: Geology, Mineralogy, Meteorology, Climatology, Proctology, Biology ... one size Prof fits all.

*Except, it doesn't*. Read here: http://www.climatechange.gov.au/accurate-answers-professor-ian-plimer



> In late 2011, Professor Ian Plimer—a geology professor and expert* mineralogist with no background in climate science*—released his latest book: How to get expelled from school: a guide to climate change for pupils, parents and punters.
> 
> In response to Professor Ian Plimer's 101 questions on climate change science, the department provides the document: Accurate Answers. The answers and comments provided are intended to give clear and accurate responses to Professor Plimer's questions. The answers are based on up-to-date peer-reviewed science and have been reviewed by a number of Australian climate scientists.



(my bolds)

Now THAT would be something to quote from and put on our Budgie Smuggler's Must Read list.


----------



## Julia (11 February 2015)

pixel said:


> Every once in a while, a university - even one of the "World's Best", so they claim - gets it wrong and awards someone a professorship, who, after closer scrutiny and with the benefit of hindsight, maybe should have failed a few steps on the way.
> 
> Every once in a while, a lecturer with some grounding in one subject - say, mineralogy - considers her/himself sufficiently competent in another field that - to the dabbling lay person - appears closely enough related. Let's face it, most lay persons will view all subjects that have an "-ology" in their name as near enough identical. Likewise, subjects with "-matics", etc.
> 
> ...



And Tim Flannery's qualifications in climate science are????


----------



## pixel (11 February 2015)

Julia said:


> And Tim Flannery's qualifications in climate science are????



If you really don't know, a good starting point to answer your question would be here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Flannery
Scroll down to "Scientific Contributions"


----------



## basilio (11 February 2015)

Hows the  noggin going NOCO ? Are you still totally incapable of reading and understanding any scientific paper worth its print ? Do you still just believe what rubbish your given as long as it suits your  beliefs?

Clearly, most clearly.

That entire dribble you regurgitate from god knows where has been skewered  a thousands, million times by every scientist who works in the earth science area.  The *BIG Lie* about volcanoes being the super source of CO2 in the atmosphere was of course  *THE BIG LIE * of his piece of total rubbish.  Did you know Noco that Plimer  *never, ever* offered specific references for this statement?  He just threw it out there totally confident in the knowledge that a million deniers would gratefully repeat it at every opportunity.

But there is more isn't there? Somehow you have manged to come up with the weirdest statement that Global temperatures have fallen by .7 degrees  in the last century.!!!

Now isn't that just fantastic. You have completely rewritten all the records of every  meteorologist around the world in one line.   How special is that .....



> *Comment: Volcanic versus anthropogenic carbon dioxide: The missing science*
> *
> 
> “Volcanoes add far more carbon dioxide to the oceans and atmosphere than humans.” So says geologist Ian Plimer of the University of Adelaide in his 2009 best seller “Heaven and Earth: Global Warming ”” the Missing Science.” With this assertion, Plimer brings volcanic carbon dioxide degassing front and center in the climate change debate, reviving and reinforcing this wildly mistaken notion.*
> ...




http://www.earthmagazine.org/articl...-anthropogenic-carbon-dioxide-missing-science


----------



## SirRumpole (11 February 2015)

Looks like noco goes on 'Ignore' on this subject.


----------



## noco (12 February 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Looks like noco goes on 'Ignore' on this subject.




*author’s credentials:

Ian Rutherford Plimeris an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide, and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies. He has published 130 scientific papers, six books and edited the Encyclopedia of Geology.




Born
12 February 1946 (age 68)
Residence
Australia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia> 
Nationality
Australian
Fields
Earth Science <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Science> , Geology <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology> ,Mining Engineering <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_Engineering> 
Institutions
University of New England <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_New_England_%28Australia%29> , University of Newcastle <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Newcastle_%28Australia%29> , University of Melbourne <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Melbourne> , University of Adelaide <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Adelaide> 
Almamater <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alma_mater> 
University of New South Wales <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_New_South_Wales> , Macquarie University <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macquarie_University> 
Thesis <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thesis> 
The pipe deposits of tungsten-molybdenum-bismuth in eastern Australia <http://www.worldcat.org/title/pipe-deposits-of-tungsten-molybdenum-bismuth-in-eastern-australia/oclc/221677073>  (1976)
Notable awards
Eureka Prize <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka_Prize>  (1995, 2002),Centenary Medal <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centenary_Medal> (2003), Clarke Medal <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke_Medal> (2004)


Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From?


*

Hope this helps Rumpy.
Sometimes it is better to ignore than to carry on trying to get your message across to Egg Heads who continue to character assassinate when they don't agree with you.

Civility costs nothing.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 February 2015)

Prof Pilmer seems well qualified in mineralogy, but not meteorology or climate science, so as others have pointed out his opinions on climate change only seem of value to those who want to agree with him because it makes them feel more comfortable, while ignoring the contrary opinions of those more qualified.

I think that is called "confirmation bias".


----------



## sydboy007 (12 February 2015)

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-11/what-apple-just-did-in-solar-is-a-really-big-deal

“We know that climate change is real,” Cook said on Tuesday. “Our view is that the time for talk has passed, and the time for action is now. We’ve shown that with what we’ve done.”


----------



## basilio (12 February 2015)

There is nothing wrong with Professor Plimers credentials on Earth Science. It is simply that his assertions on the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes in comparison to humanities contributions  is totally and demonstrably false.

Every expert in the field has agreed that his figures are pure fiction. We  can physically tell where the extra CO2 in the atmosphere has come from (fossil fuel use) by the different isotopes in the gas.  This is all black and white stuff.

This has all been pointed out chapter and verse probably  half a dozen times on this forum.  It can be rediscovered with 5 minutes research on the web.  When Noco and anyone else trots out the same ridiculous proven lies to bolster an untenable belief ... well you get called out for what you are.

http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/




> *Not all carbon is equal*
> 
> Carbon is released into the atmosphere from a variety of sources including respiration of plants and microbes, bushfires, volcanoes, and burning fossil fuels. Some of these mechanisms have a distinct carbon isotopic signature.
> 
> ...




http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/03/14/3452867.htm


----------



## basilio (12 February 2015)

Lets be a little fairer to Noco and the millions of other people who blindly repeat complete dribble.

*The real villain in this case is Professor Plimer* He is a scientist and with that background understands the importance of evidence when attempting to make a case. His book completely disregarded all the evidence around the causes of the extra CO2 in the atmosphere. 

No one disputes that volcanoes  emit large amounts of CO2.  In the past they were the major factor in changing our climate.  But in the last 50-150 years  mankinds contribution to CO2 levels has totally outstripped  all the input of volcanic activity. 

Professor Plimer crime is ignoring the evidence of the remainder of the scientific arena to create a lie.

By the way you don't have to a climate scientist to  support these studies. The question is not  "How much impact does CO2 have on the climate ?"  but "Where did the extra CO2 come from ?"


----------



## Logique (12 February 2015)

noco said:


> *Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From?*
> 
> Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better!
> If you've read his book you will agree, this is a good summary.
> ...



Inconvenient truth Noco. They are desperate to discredit Plimer, but his considerable scientific CV withstands scrutiny. They think 20 year old activists at IPCC (remember them) know better.


----------



## basilio (12 February 2015)

Logique said:


> Inconvenient truth Noco. They are desperate to discredit Plimer, but his considerable scientific CV withstands scrutiny. They think 20 year old activists at IPCC (remember them) know better.




Are you just as cognitively impaired as Noco Logique?  Perhaps more so because you have had the benefit of checking the information that shows how dishonest Professor Plimer  is with his statements.

In what universe do people accept the assertion of one scientists,* with no supportive evidence,* against every other scientist in the same field who with reams of research  identify the realities of the situation ? Obviously this one.. 

Simple denial.


----------



## basilio (12 February 2015)

By the way Pixels url which offered detailed answers to Professors Plimers notorious 101 questions is a good read. Goes through all the misleading questions and answers them clearly and succinctly.

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/sites/climatechange/files/documents/03_2013/prof-plimer-answers.pdf


----------



## basilio (12 February 2015)

I'll offer another perspective on this discussion perhaps to take the heat out of  the science regarding climate change.

The biggest losers in a change of energy sources  in our future will be the fossil fuel industry. They have made a squillion from providing coal, oil and natural gas. Business interest demands that this industry keeps on going - regardless of its effect on the environment.

So what happens if  it becomes clear that in economic terms renewable energy  is more competitive than fossil fuels ? When it is cheaper to run power stations and electric cars off wind, solar and battery banks than fossil fuels? 

Apple has decided to fund an $800million solar power plant.  It is not just to reduce CO2 emissions. It is because it will be cheaper.  On a broader scale consider the logic in the following analysis.



> * Seven Reasons Cheap Oil Can't Stop Renewables Now*
> Oil is cheap. So is gas. Neither matters
> 
> Oil prices have fallen by more than half since July. Just five years ago, such a plunge in fossil fuels would have put the renewable-energy industry on bankruptcy watch. Today: Meh.



http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-30/seven-reasons-cheap-oil-can-t-stop-renewables-now

______________________________________________________________

And to see just how troubling the current drop in oil prices is for the fossil fuel industry check out the following story.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ion-of-investments-stranded-in-the-oil-fields


----------



## Logique (12 February 2015)

basilio said:


> Are you just as cognitively impaired as Noco Logique?  Perhaps more so because you have had the benefit of checking the information that shows how dishonest Professor Plimer  is with his statements.
> 
> In what universe do people accept the assertion of one scientists,* with no supportive evidence,* against every other scientist in the same field who with reams of research  identify the realities of the situation ? Obviously this one..
> 
> Simple denial.



Joe, both Noco and myself (and Prof Plimer) have been vilified in this post, our offence being to hold a different point of view.  

In your opinion as Mod, does this constitute abusive posting.


----------



## Joe Blow (12 February 2015)

Logique said:


> Joe, both Noco and myself (and Prof Plimer) have been vilified in this post, our offence being to hold a different point of view.
> 
> In your opinion as Mod, does this constitute abusive posting.




I think that basilio has stepped over the line here and should focus on attacking his opponents arguments, rather than insulting them personally.

I trust this was just an aberration, and that there will not be any further posting of this kind, either in this thread or in any others.


----------



## noco (12 February 2015)

Joe Blow said:


> I think that basilio has stepped over the line here and should focus on attacking his opponents arguments, rather than insulting them personally.
> 
> I trust this was just an aberration, and that there will not be any further posting of this kind, either in this thread or in any others.




Thanks Joe.

That is one of the reasons I have been absent lately....I hope the perpetrators take note...Character assassination is not the way to respond.

IMHO. Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit from the uneducated.


----------



## Julia (12 February 2015)

pixel said:


> If you really don't know,



 I do know.  The point of my comment is that his educational background, the BA in English and the doctorate in Palaeontology for his work on the evolution of kangaroos, apart from the Earth Science degree, would appear to make him no more especially qualified to be an expert on climate change than many other scientists.

The fact that he has been appointed by a government of a particular view to climate related positions could just as well be the reflection of the natural desire to appoint someone who will endorse that government's point of view.
It seems to me quite possible that, had a different government wanted to appoint someone to reflect a different view they may have appointed someone like Professor Plimer.



noco said:


> Civility costs nothing.



+1



SirRumpole said:


> Prof Pilmer seems well qualified in mineralogy, but not meteorology or climate science, so as others have pointed out his opinions on climate change only seem of value to those who want to agree with him because it makes them feel more comfortable, while ignoring the contrary opinions of those more qualified.
> 
> I think that is called "confirmation bias".



You might like to point out Tim Flannery's specific qualifications in meteorology or climate science (as distinct from positions related to those sciences.)



basilio said:


> Are you just as cognitively impaired as Noco Logique?



I seem to remember you pleading for reduction in abusive posts, basilio.
It's a while since I've seen a more unpleasant example of personal abuse toward two people who have simply expressed a point of view to which they're entitled.


----------



## SirRumpole (12 February 2015)

> You might like to point out Tim Flannery's specific qualifications in meteorology or climate science (as distinct from positions related to those sciences.)




Tim Flannery is one voice but there are a lot of highly qualified others saying the same thing as him, whereas the ranks of the scientific climate change sceptics seem to be rather thin.


----------



## dutchie (12 February 2015)

There's more money to be made for pro climate change than for non climate change.


----------



## basilio (12 February 2015)

> Joe, both Noco and myself (and Prof Plimer) have been vilified in this post, our offence being to hold a different point of view.
> 
> In your opinion as Mod, does this constitute abusive posting



  Logique



> *I think that basilio has stepped over the line here and should focus on attacking his opponents arguments, rather than insulting them personally.
> 
> I trust this was just an aberration, and that there will not be any further posting of this kind, either in this thread or in any other* Joe Blow




Plus Julia comments

Strong comments wern't they ?  Where do we start on this one.

Climate Change has always been a "robust"thread both here and elsewhere.  I believe the point I was making was that the view offered by Professor Plimer and echoed by Noco and Logique *has simply no evidence to support it. *In fact when one examines the work of seemingly every other earth scientist they will say exactly the same thing -  volcanoes produce only a very small fraction of the CO2 emissions.

This evidence is easily produced. That was why I found a couple of sources and in fact could quote  hundreds more.

But we have been around this block many, many times. Noco and others repeat statements that are objectively wrong. Professor Plimer is, as I said, far more  worthy of vilification because as a scientist he has a greater capacity to research and a far larger responsibility to publish accurate information. Perhaps it is an indictment on our system that he has managed to get away with publishing a gross error and repeating it ad nausem. 

I was deliberately drawing attention to the ridiculousness of Noco's comments. I could have perhaps suggested he confirm his views after reading a wider selection of scientific literature. But that hasn't seemed to work in the last hundreds of discussions on the topic so I might be whistling dixie again.

There is nothing wrong with having different points of view. There is a problem, I suggest, when all objective evidence says your view goes against the evidence. Bit like saying that in your considered view Sydney won the 2014 AFL premiership. Or that the moon is made of green cheese. 

In this conversation there is room for discussion about the science. Anyone care to comment on the rest of  the Earth Scientists response to Professor Plimer ?


----------



## orr (12 February 2015)

Another Dunder head talking out of school on a subject he has obviously no relevance to and no understanding of;

http://www.ted.com/talks/lord_nicho...ate_and_what_we_might_do_about_it?language=en

Can someone help me understand as to why this _'pfffff' lord_ Stern receives the notoriety he does? beyond me.

'ohh' now I get it, here he is in the 'Age of Stupid';(now, at last, I feel at home with a few posters here)

http://vimeo.com/4844257

he comes in at around 11mins... and again at 29mins on comparative cost to GFC bank bailout costs vs climate mitigation


----------



## noco (12 February 2015)

orr said:


> Another Dunder head talking out of school on a subject he has obviously no relevance to and no understanding of;
> 
> http://www.ted.com/talks/lord_nicho...ate_and_what_we_might_do_about_it?language=en
> 
> ...




I listened to that U-Tube with interest but that goes back prior to the Copenhagen AGW summit in Kevin Rudd's era either 2008 or 2009 when he took over 100 people from Australia with him and we all know what happened at Copenhagen and all the annual summits thereafter.
Some research into the CO2 emissions from volcanoes revealed there are 3 types of volcanoes and one in particular emits more CO2 than others.

But some further searching reveals the myths and facts about climate change.

No doubt I will be stirring the pot again but the argument and facts from both alarmists and skeptics is far from settled and I cannot see it be settled in the next 100 years....The IPPC is not a scientific organization but a political one. 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/copenh...n-facts-and-ten-myths-on-climate-change/16467


----------



## basilio (27 February 2015)

The giant craters in Siberia are multiplying fast. Essentially they are the result of pressurized methane gas escaping through the thawing permafrost across Siberia.

A huge explosion, a monstrous crater and a continuous release of methane which is  2o times more potent as a greenhouse gas as CO2.



> *More Mysterious Craters Found in Siberia, Scientist Says 'Urgent’ Investigation Needed*
> 
> 
> .... Trapped gases
> ...




http://www.livescience.com/49965-siberian-craters-call-for-investigation.html


----------



## Bintang (27 February 2015)

basilio said:


> The giant craters in Siberia are multiplying fast. Essentially they are the result of pressurized methane gas escaping through the thawing permafrost across Siberia.
> 
> A huge explosion, a monstrous crater and a continuous release of methane which is 20 times more potent as a greenhouse gas as CO2.




There should be no doubt about this at all. The only thing mysterious to me is why the writer of the article feels it necessary to make this idiotic vacillation:

_“Although the origin of these craters remains somewhat mysterious…”_


----------



## noco (27 February 2015)

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...|heading|homepage|homepage&itmt=1425041430235

*First they denied their warming predictions were false. Now they hunt for an excuse - and one that keeps their scare alive:

    FORCES of natural climate variability have caused the apparent slowdown in global warming this century but the effect will be temporary, according to new research…

    Byron Steinman, of the University of Minnesota Duluth, and Michael Mann and Sonya Miller, of Pennsylvania State University, found that these natural, or “internal”, forces had recently been offsetting the rise in global mean surface temperature caused by increasing greenhouse gas concentrations. *

No doubt the alarmist will will say these people are talking rubbish.


----------



## Bintang (28 February 2015)

I just remembered that back in 2005 when I used to actively post on the Peak Oil forum (not as Bintang) I asked a question about when the arctic tundra would start burping up its methane. My question was pretty much ignored at the time and didn’t generate much interest (I'm surprised I was able to retrieve the post after all this time):





It’s nearly 10 years since I visited that forum but now I see that the subject I touched on in 2005 is receiving a lot more attention

*Huge pits forming in Arctic permafrost*
http://peakoil.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=70080


----------



## basilio (28 February 2015)

The concern about the release of   huge uncontrollable amounts of methane from the melting tundra is certainly in the minds of  scientists who are directly aware of the situation. My memory says that previous very rapid global warmings were caused by the breakdown of  frozen methane.

http://www.livescience.com/37359-nasa-carve-thawing-permafrost-gas.html

_______________________________________________________________________

Noco I think you have misunderstood the research highlighted by Andrew Bolt.
The research points out that there are factors that can temporarily reduce temperatures and effectively mask the underlying increase in the earths temperature.  That is what Michel Mann et al are saying.

Of course Andrew Bolt just decided to accept one part of their research - the short term effects of  increased winds over the ocean  etc.  Of course Andrew never accepts the remainder of the science around global warming from the same scientists. Very selective indeed.


----------



## sydboy007 (1 March 2015)

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/02/26/3627490/china-coal-peak/

_China cut its coal consumption 2.9 percent in 2014, the first drop this century. Domestic coal production fell 2.5 percent._

For some reason we still want to build new coal mines in this country


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 March 2015)

A drop in China's coal _consumption_ is one thing. They're bringing on quite a lot of non-coal energy supply (hydro, nuclear, gas, wind etc) and there is also the apparent slowdown in construction and steel production (which uses coal).

It's the drop in coal _production_ that I see as potentially more significant and which many will be watching with ongoing interest. By most estimates China's coal reserves are actually quite limited and the mining of 3 billion or so tonnes per year never was going to last long. In that case, if China has hit peak coal in terms of production (irrespective of demand) then things could get rather interesting in the years ahead and those Australian coal mines may well turn out to be highly profitable.


----------



## Ijustnewit (5 March 2015)

Some nice snow storms last night here in Tasmania , Mount Wellington in Hobart covered in lovely Spring snow.
I still believe we are heading to the next ice age.


----------



## Knobby22 (14 March 2015)

Ijustnewit said:


> I still believe we are heading to the next ice age.




I hope so. We just had our warmest year ever and we need to hope we have a counter acting force however natural climate effects are probably too slow.


----------



## explod (14 March 2015)

Ijustnewit said:


> Some nice snow storms last night here in Tasmania , Mount Wellington in Hobart covered in lovely Spring snow.
> I still believe we are heading to the next ice age.




Gee,  that's nice,  in the autumn too. 

The two poles have been like solid castles,  but as they crumble some of the stones roll out over the field. 

shocking drought over most of inland Australia. 

What we have due to the warming is absorbance and distribution. 

Worth reading up on.  Very alarming actually.


----------



## noco (14 March 2015)

We have been repeated told by the alarmist, including the Flannery nut, there would be more cyclones and more intense than ever before.

We have really only had one cat. 3 this year in Queensland which passed over Yeppoon and Rockhampton....The alarmist tried to make out it was a cat 5 just to make it look bad.


----------



## Knobby22 (16 March 2015)

Sorry noco, incorrect.
The number of climate induced disasters has risen 44% since 2000 compared to 1994-2000.
Vanuatu, Phillipines etc.

Damn UN went on about it over the weekend.
Refer Matt Wade, the Age. Today for the link.

Don't refer newscorp.


----------



## noco (16 March 2015)

Knobby22 said:


> Sorry noco, incorrect.
> The number of climate induced disasters has risen 44% since 2000 compared to 1994-2000.
> Vanuatu, Phillipines etc.
> 
> ...




So how come we missed out in NQ?......One small cat 3 hit Yeppoon......The alarmist tried hard to make a cat 5.

I was in Nadi 1993 when CAT 4 Joni hit Fiji.


----------



## noco (16 March 2015)

Knobby22 said:


> Sorry noco, incorrect.
> The number of climate induced disasters has risen 44% since 2000 compared to 1994-2000.
> Vanuatu, Phillipines etc.
> 
> ...




So here we go again with a renewed surge by the alarmist....Perhaps you should do some research on the activities before 1994.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...food-taste-funny/story-fni0ffxg-1227263711422


----------



## Knobby22 (16 March 2015)

How can Andrew say there has been no global warming for 17 years when we just had our hottest year ever?


----------



## noco (16 March 2015)

Knobby22 said:


> How can Andrew say there has been no global warming for 17 years when we just had our hottest year ever?




Andrew did not say it, he is only the messenger.......he is just conveying the facts as they come to hand....one hot year does not make confirmation of Global Warming........Anyway, it is not Global Warming any more......The alarmist prefer to use modern term Climate Change......now why did they change from Global warming to Climate change.....well, I guess they must have had good reason.


----------



## basilio (17 March 2015)

noco said:


> Andrew did not say it, he is only the messenger.......he is just conveying the facts as they come to hand....one hot year does not make confirmation of Global Warming........Anyway, it is not Global Warming any more......The alarmist prefer to use modern term Climate Change......now why did they change from Global warming to Climate change.....well, I guess they must have had good reason.




Black is white...., Black is White...., Black is white.... Deny,.. Deny .. Deny
Black is white...., Black is White...., Black is white.... Deny,.. Deny .. Deny
Black is white...., Black is White...., Black is white.... Deny,.. Deny .. Deny
Black is white...., Black is White...., Black is white.... Deny,.. Deny .. Deny
Black is white...., Black is White...., Black is white.... Deny,.. Deny .. Deny

 ad infitum, ad nausem.    ad infitum, ad nausem.   ad infitum, ad nausem.  ad infitum, ad nausem.


----------



## noco (17 March 2015)

basilio said:


> Black is white...., Black is White...., Black is white.... Deny,.. Deny .. Deny
> Black is white...., Black is White...., Black is white.... Deny,.. Deny .. Deny
> Black is white...., Black is White...., Black is white.... Deny,.. Deny .. Deny
> Black is white...., Black is White...., Black is white.... Deny,.. Deny .. Deny
> ...




So I guess that puts the Alarmist in to a shade of grey.


----------



## luutzu (17 March 2015)

noco said:


> Andrew did not say it, he is only the messenger.......he is just conveying the facts as they come to hand....one hot year does not make confirmation of Global Warming........Anyway, it is not Global Warming any more......The alarmist prefer to use modern term Climate Change......now why did they change from Global warming to Climate change.....well, I guess they must have had good reason.




I heard that "Climate Change" was coined by the denier camp, the "skeptics".

They hired some consultant and they figured the stats just can't be denied - that the world is getting warmer - and so instead of "global warming", let's neutralize that and call it "climate change"... you know, like the weather always changing with the season - all natural.

It's bad if people hear that the world is heating up; less of a problem if wild weathers are just part of the change in the climate.


----------



## Knobby22 (9 June 2015)

Not looking good for the deniers. Skeptics are becoming more attuned to events.

Recent  stories: Look up your own links

Woodside Chief slams coal as dirty fuel, bad for environment and global warming. 
G8 decides to remove carbon from economies by 2100.
Satellite data shows sea level rise rate is accelerating.
Australia at increased risk of flash flooding as temperatures warm: study - shows flash flooding has increased over last 20 years.


----------



## MrBurns (9 June 2015)

There's no global warming in Melbourne I'm freezing.


----------



## MrBurns (9 June 2015)

Bigger threats to humanity - 


Asteroid.
Massive geological events, earthquakes.
ISIS obtaining nuclear weapons.
North Korea using nuclear weapons because Kim Jong-un got offended by a fat boy joke.
Russia using nuclear weapons to defend their right to invade the Ukraine.


----------



## bellenuit (9 June 2015)

MrBurns said:


> Bigger threats to humanity -
> 
> 
> Asteroid.
> ...




I would include the threat of a virus of some sort and also biological weaponry.


----------



## MrBurns (9 June 2015)

bellenuit said:


> I would include the threat of a virus of some sort and also biological weaponry.




Yes that is a very real threat........a virus could potentially wipe out whole cities.


----------



## noco (9 June 2015)

MrBurns said:


> Yes that is a very real threat........a virus could potentially wipe out whole cities.




The Islamic State is working on it as we speak...It won't be long.


----------



## MrBurns (9 June 2015)

noco said:


> The Islamic State is working on it as we speak...It won't be long.




Also they are now almost in a position where they can buy a nuke from Pakistan....the only ones that will stop them is the US, it seems they're the only thing between us and Armageddon.


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 June 2015)

Knobby22 said:


> Woodside Chief slams coal as dirty fuel, bad for environment and global warming.




That's just business since Woodside is in the business of selling oil and gas.

I doubt that Woodside would be willing to point out that the LNG they're producing is only marginally cleaner than coal once the energy required to turn raw gas into LNG is accounted for.

They'd likely be even less keen on lowering domestic gas prices to as to make gas more competitive with coal locally. That would hurt the bottom line, and businesses aren't known for voluntarily doing that.

This one is just business. It suits a gas company quite nicely to promote gas over coal so that's what they're doing.


----------



## wayneL (10 June 2015)

"Deniers" pfft

Losers word.


----------



## sails (10 June 2015)

wayneL said:


> "Deniers" pfft
> 
> Losers word.




+100 

Seems to be used by those who have insufficient evidence to support their argument causing them to resort to undignified name calling and insults


----------



## Knobby22 (10 June 2015)

sails said:


> +100
> 
> Seems to be used by those who have insufficient evidence to support their argument causing them to resort to undignified name calling and insults




Pfft

There are climate skeptics, climate change minimisers and deniers.
Try to get your heads around it.


----------



## sails (10 June 2015)

Knobby22 said:


> Pfft
> 
> There are climate skeptics, climate change minimisers and deniers.
> Try to get your heads around it.




And you could add Climate Alarmists, Climate clowns - should I go on...

Surely it's unnecessary to add the name calling?


----------



## Knobby22 (10 June 2015)

Warmist


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 June 2015)

Knobby22 said:


> There are climate skeptics, climate change minimisers and deniers.




The sensible position on _anything_ which hasn't actually happened yet is to be skeptical but open to evidence in either direction unless we're talking about a pattern which has previously occurred with 100% reliability (eg it gets light every morning and dark at night - that could be considered as 100% certain).

That concept goes for everything really. If it's in the future then it is not certain. Just because you're sitting on a plane on the ground in Sydney and expecting to fly to Adelaide doesn't mean the plane will actually take off, fly and land in Adelaide. It could stay on the ground for whatever reason. It could take off then land again in Sydney. It could take off and land somewhere completely different, say Canberra. A rational person would thus take the skeptical view - the plane will probably fly to Adelaide and land there but it's not absolutely certain.

Until we actually get to 2050, 2100 or whenever, there's no absolute certainty as to what's going to happen with the climate. We can make predictions yes, but ultimately they are just predictions (hopefully) based on the best available knowledge at the time. They may be right or they may be wrong, humans generally can't predict things with 100% accuracy. Heck, we can't even predict the stock market with certainty and yet humans collectively have absolute control over it. 

So I'm a skeptic and consider that to be the sensible position to take. Based on what I know, I do think the climate has changed measurably in some locations at least over the past 40 years and I do see the argument of a link between climate and CO2 as being very plausible. But we're still learning about natural systems and as such it is not possible to say with 100% certainty exactly what the cause of any change is - although we could say that changing the composition of the atmosphere is _probably_ having some effect.

Denier - not rational as there's insufficient evidence to prove that CO2 etc does NOT cause a change in climate.

100% certain - not rational for the same reason. We have a lot of theories, but there may well be some other reason for changes in climate that we simply aren't aware of.

Skeptical - having an open mind seems sensible on any subject where there is uncertainty. That goes for everything from climate to who will win the AFL Grand Final this year and what the RBA's next move will be. When something is in the future, the outcome is never certain until it happens.


----------



## SirRumpole (10 June 2015)

> Skeptical - having an open mind seems sensible on any subject where there is uncertainty. That goes for everything from climate to who will win the AFL Grand Final this year and what the RBA's next move will be. When something is in the future, the outcome is never certain until it happens.




Indeed yes, but the question is a lot more important than who will win the AFL grand final.

If we wait for 50 years to see what happens in regards to climate, and the worse predictions are then validated, then it's too late to do anything about it.

Surely this must be a "prepare for the worse case" scenario, on the grounds that if we do that and nothing happens then we may have wasted our money, or we can say that our precautions have avoided disaster. The millenium bug scenario comes to mind. 

If the current scientific consensus based on available data is that there is a problem, that it's serious and needs to be handled, then the prudent thing to do is to take action. The evidence is that the ozone holes have diminished since the crackdowns on CFC's, so we can make a difference to the climate if we try. Of course there will always be things like volcanoes that we can't do anything about, but they make a very small contribution to CO2 compared to human emmissions.

Scepticism is fine when the outcome doesn't really matter, in this case though it could be fatal.


----------



## explod (10 June 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Indeed yes, but the question is a lot more important than who will win the AFL...
> 
> Scepticism is fine when the outcome doesn't really matter, in this case though it could be fatal.




Absolutely 

A sensible post.


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 June 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> Scepticism is fine when the outcome doesn't really matter, in this case though it could be fatal.




Trouble is, practically everything humans do could turn out badly. If we take the approach of assuming the worst outcome with everything then we'll never do anything.

Personally, my own bias is logically toward action to reduce emissions and that is my personal view also. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't take action, just pointing out that we are dealing with uncertainty. There's two separate issues there. One is what's going to happen, the other is what should we do about it? We have to make a decision on the latter without having firm proof of the former. 

To take action is not unreasonable given the consequences if the worst does happen. It's the same logic which gives reason to be extremely cautious about (for example) genetically engineered food crops and nuclear power. Regardless of the probability, the consequences of a worst case disaster are truly catastrophic. Just like climate change, once the genie is out of the bottle we're screwed.

Taking action and certainty about the issue are different things however. We do not have certainty about the issue one way or the other and likely won't for quite some time yet. It is thus rational to be skeptical about that, unless someone can provide firm, absolute proof to show exactly the relationship between CO2 and climate which thus far seems to be elusive. That does not mean we should ignore it, it just means we aren't sure about what we're really dealing with.


----------



## overhang (10 June 2015)

Smurf1976 said:


> The sensible position on _anything_ which hasn't actually happened yet is to be skeptical but open to evidence in either direction unless we're talking about a pattern which has previously occurred with 100% reliability (eg it gets light every morning and dark at night - that could be considered as 100% certain).
> 
> That concept goes for everything really. If it's in the future then it is not certain. Just because you're sitting on a plane on the ground in Sydney and expecting to fly to Adelaide doesn't mean the plane will actually take off, fly and land in Adelaide. It could stay on the ground for whatever reason. It could take off then land again in Sydney. It could take off and land somewhere completely different, say Canberra. A rational person would thus take the skeptical view - the plane will probably fly to Adelaide and land there but it's not absolutely certain.




In your analogy should we not have ground staff waiting at the airport seeing as though we're not 100% certain the plane will land so there is no point preparing for it since we can't know for certainty that the plane will land in Adelaide?

No I don't believe in rash policy like the carbon tax to deal with the possibility of the issue however I do believe a gradual shift to renewable energy is sensible policy to move us toward an energy grid that isn't reliant on unsustainable fossil fuels which is why I supported the CEFC and do support some form of a RET.


----------



## luutzu (10 June 2015)

Smurf1976 said:


> Trouble is, practically everything humans do could turn out badly. If we take the approach of assuming the worst outcome with everything then we'll never do anything.
> 
> Personally, my own bias is logically toward action to reduce emissions and that is my personal view also. I'm not suggesting that we shouldn't take action, just pointing out that we are dealing with uncertainty. There's two separate issues there. One is what's going to happen, the other is what should we do about it? We have to make a decision on the latter without having firm proof of the former.
> 
> ...




I thought the science is already in. But being science, it cannot "prove" a future event so it simply postulate a theory, with all the evidence and modellings, and conclude that there is a correlation and it will be disastrous etc.

I mean, the dinosaurs are all dead 150 million years ago and we still couldn't "prove" what kill it.


----------



## wayneL (11 June 2015)

Knobby22 said:


> Pfft
> 
> There are climate skeptics, climate change minimisers and deniers.
> Try to get your heads around it.




Knobby, anyone who contests the worst case scenario, or suggests factors in climate change other than, or in addition to co2 is labelled a denier. 

Don't play ducks and drakes, you know this.

Such is the extent of the climate McCarthyism that honest brokers such as Pielke Jnr have withdrawn from public comment and debate on the topic (himself a warmist but relying on actual data, eschewing Gorist propaganda).


http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com.au/2015/03/this-post-will-serve-as-running-update.html?m=1


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 June 2015)

overhang said:


> In your analogy should we not have ground staff waiting at the airport seeing as though we're not 100% certain the plane will land so there is no point preparing for it since we can't know for certainty that the plane will land in Adelaide?




We have ground staff and other facilities at Adelaide and other airports because we expect planes to land there in the normal course of business.

We do not, however, have ground staff and other facilities beside a straight stretch of road on flat land in the middle of nowhere even though there is a remote chance that a plane might make an emergency landing on it. Planes have landed on roads before but there's an awful lot of roads and a very low occurrence of planes landing on them, hence we don't worry about it. If a plane does land there then we deal with it when it happens.



> I do believe a gradual shift to renewable energy is sensible policy to move us toward an energy grid that isn't reliant on unsustainable fossil fuels which is why I supported the CEFC and do support some form of a RET.




I am absolutely in favour of a move to renewables for the simple reason that, even without the CO2 issue, there are a lot of other problems with fossil fuels. CO2 aside, coal makes a mess in oh so many ways whilst oil and gas are pretty clearly linked to wars and other forms of suffering globally. Meanwhile, they have important uses (particularly oil and gas) other than generating electricity which makes their use in power stations seem rather wasteful at best.

That said, there is a very real economic cost of making the transition at least in the short term based on how current economic thinking works. As such, the precautionary principle is not free, there is a very real cost involved to do it and we'd be wise to make rational, informed decisions. Do we need to cut 80% by 2020? Or will cutting 50% by 2050 be OK? There's a massive difference in the implications there so it's wise to base such decisions on science rather than always assuming the worst case. If we took the worst case scenario with everything then we'd have the entire coal, oil, gas and nuclear industries closed for good by the weekend but pretty obviously there are massive consequences of doing that, hence things which catch fire or glow in the dark will be with us for some time yet.

My personal view is that we should simply not build any new fossil fuel power generation except in circumstances where there is either no practical alternative and/or it serves solely as backup to intermittent renewables. In due course the old plants will close, another one's gone today (closure of Northern and Playford B by 2018 announced (though Playford B is already mothballed) - that ends all coal-fired generation in SA) and renewables take over in an orderly manner.


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 June 2015)

luutzu said:


> I thought the science is already in.




The science is "in" with things like asbestos being deadly or that it's possible to communicate using light transmitted long distances over glass (optical fibre). No question there, there's more than enough evidence about asbestos and we can prove that sending data over optically works. 

But so far as the climate is concerned, there are many natural influences over climate and nobody would seriously suggest that we fully understand them all. As such, it's not possible to separate man-made effects from natural ones with certainty. We can come up with theories, but we're not at the point of being able to say with 100% certainty that they are right. Probably perhaps, but not absolute certainty. 

That said, we do know that CO2 traps heat, that point is beyond doubt as such. What's uncertain is how the many effects of increasing CO2 on an entire planet actually play out in reality. We may well get less or more warming than we expect and many other unexpected things may happen as a result. As such, the science isn't really "settled" as to what would actually happen at any given CO2 concentration. Theories certainly, but there's no absolute certainty and that leads to debates like the one in this thread.


----------



## luutzu (11 June 2015)

Smurf1976 said:


> The science is "in" with things like asbestos being deadly or that it's possible to communicate using light transmitted long distances over glass (optical fibre). No question there, there's more than enough evidence about asbestos and we can prove that sending data over optically works.
> 
> But so far as the climate is concerned, there are many natural influences over climate and nobody would seriously suggest that we fully understand them all. As such, it's not possible to separate man-made effects from natural ones with certainty. We can come up with theories, but we're not at the point of being able to say with 100% certainty that they are right. Probably perhaps, but not absolute certainty.
> 
> That said, we do know that CO2 traps heat, that point is beyond doubt as such. What's uncertain is how the many effects of increasing CO2 on an entire planet actually play out in reality. We may well get less or more warming than we expect and many other unexpected things may happen as a result. As such, the science isn't really "settled" as to what would actually happen at any given CO2 concentration. Theories certainly, but there's no absolute certainty and that leads to debates like the one in this thread.




No certainty but there are very strong correlations - at the least. And sure correlation does not mean causation but I've seen charts and what not showing rising temperature and other effects since industrialization.

CO2 traps heat, resulting in the Greenhouse Effect. That melts the glaciers, the Antarctic, warmer temperature here while colder there... and if certain part of the Arctic or Greenland melt it will release the CO2 that's been trapped over centuries and millenniums... 

Add to all that the solar storms and flare, the orbit the Earth is at from the Sun; rising population and greater industrialisation and higher demand for energy...

So yes, there's a lot of factors at play and it's difficult to say with certainty the timing and magnitude of the result - but to say we're not yet certain of the cause is bit much. Not saying you said that, but that while the science may not be conclusive at this point, it's pretty convincing that global warming is real and human activities play a big part in it.

As Sirrumpole said before.. when we're dealing with matters that take decades to turn around or to switch, where the result meant death and destruction to millions if not most life on Earth... probably best to err on the side of caution.


----------



## trainspotter (12 June 2015)

luutzu said:


> As Sirrumpole said before.. when we're dealing with matters that take decades to turn around or to switch, where the result meant death and destruction to millions if not most life on Earth... probably best to err on the side of caution.






> meant death and destruction to millions if not most life on Earth




WOW ... is this real? Millions of years of Darwinism and this is the pinnacle?

Haters gonna Hate but life on this spinning rock aint so bad around the solar system. It is a GLOBAL phenomenon ... US here on ASF will not FIX IT. China and India and the USA need to hug a tree NOW 

Started looking at how much plastic and paper mulch I throw out to the refuse .... *REPURPOSE *is the new black. Adaptation of the old school word RECYCLE. 

Keep it real guys ... PULEEEEZE !


----------



## luutzu (12 June 2015)

trainspotter said:


> WOW ... is this real? Millions of years of Darwinism and this is the pinnacle?
> 
> Haters gonna Hate but life on this spinning rock aint so bad around the solar system. It is a GLOBAL phenomenon ... US here on ASF will not FIX IT. China and India and the USA need to hug a tree NOW
> 
> ...




We'd probably need to do more than just recycle or hug a tree.

It's not like we could just build a new power plant, or turn off our cars or go green the next day or year. It'll take years to get any plant safely on line, take decades to bring enough alternative power plant and transportation and infrastuctures etc. to meaningfully reduce the impact... and telling the poorer nations to stop wanting a car each or to not live like the West ain't going to work either.

If we wait for clear and present evidence, do you seriously we'd have enough resources to cope, repair, assist those affected and also bring online the alternatives?

Read that in the US last year, there's some 1500 train derailment, 1/3 was due to track issues. Its roads and bridges, its power grid etc. are old and a massive number of them are unsafe and need repair. Now, let say extreme weather like snowstorms, heatwave, hurricane were to occur much more frequently across many US states... Extreme weather will damage or really worn out infrastructure, people will die and a lot will get sick...

A rich country like the US will have a hard time meeting those needs, a lot of resources will be spent to just bring things back to normal working order, a lot of loss time and productivity etc. etc.

So if the perfect storm hit, and if science could then point to the "proof"... we'd just then all switch over and hug a tree and it'd be alright?

-----

Don't want to be alarmist but it is alarming. 

We're living through an age where enormous number of species goes extinct - the last time extinction happen on this scale was the extinction of the dinosaurs - literally, no exaggeration. But we're cool with it for some reason.


----------



## Knobby22 (12 June 2015)

Reading Elizabeth Knight in the Age today, regarding the shutting down of the Alinta power station in SA.
She states that other power stations in danger of shutting down due to consumers using less power and reduced industry demand includes NSW Delta Electricity plant at Vale Point, Queensland's Intergen plant at Millmeran and CS Energy's Callide B and Stanwells' Tarong North Plant. 

So you say, great we are shutting down coal plants- excellent for reducing greenhouse emmissions. The problem is that we are shutting down the wrong plants! Some of these are the most efficient black coal plants in the country.
We should be shutting down Hazlewood in Victoria which is old, inefficient and burns brown coal, one of the worst polluting plants in the whole world, not only of CO2 but also sulphur etc. Because we have got rid of carbon pricing it can survive while the others shut down. This is a direct consequence of getting rid of the carbon tax.

Surely, we can do better.


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 June 2015)

Knobby22 said:


> The problem is that we are shutting down the wrong plants! Some of these are the most efficient black coal plants in the country. We should be shutting down Hazlewood in Victoria which is old, inefficient and burns brown coal, one of the worst polluting plants in the whole world, not only of CO2 but also sulphur etc.




Hazelwood isn't too bad in terms of sulphur emissions, the coal is only about 0.3% sulphur (from memory) and that's not too bad. Plenty of other coal is higher in sulphur than what's burned in the Latrobe Valley.

As for plant closures, the real issues are (1) location and (2) who owns what.

So far as location is concerned, closing Hazelwood and getting more power from Queensland doesn't work unless we build more transmission infrastructure. Qld already exports heavily into NSW most of the time and there isn't sufficient capacity Qld - NSW or NSW - Vic to offset the loss of a large power station in Vic no matter how much power Qld has available.

As for ownership, the issue there is different companies, and different states at the political level, are pursuing very different strategies. In broad terms Qld and NSW are pursuing higher prices at various levels of the industry (generation in Qld, networks in NSW) so as to have consumers subsidise the privatisation push.

Victoria is basically saying "leave it to the market".

Tasmania is pushing cheap power from renewables and the trend in prices is down in nominal terms so some significant falls in "real" terms. Part of that, and something that will have the usual economic types wondering where they went wrong, has been to put all generation back into a single entity (Hydro Tas) and to also put the networks all into one entity (Tas Networks) regardless of voltage. Economic types will bleat on about competition lowering prices but they forget the loss of efficiency inherent in that model. You push prices up first, then try to get them back down a bit by cutting returns on what is already a sunk investment - doesn't work in practice.

SA is basically pushing renewables as a strategic and economic move and not really worrying about what happens to the rest.

So shutting some capacity in Qld in order to push prices up fits with the strategy. Close efficient plant and run inefficient plant more - that actually does make money even though it's irrational from a broader perspective. The coal closures in NSW are more market driven, whilst the gas mothballing (well, it's not technically mothballed but the combined cycle unit has been idle for over a year now) is also market driven - the gas is worth more sold into interstate markets as gas than it's worth as electricity. 

Building more renewables is also a market driven result, albeit one of a market which includes incentives such as the RET. SA will do more with wind and probably solar, Tas is having another look at more hydro and wind. Other states it's more about whatever someone comes up with, there's no real strategy as such other than "leave it to the market".

If the Northern (Port Augusta, coal), Torrens Island A (Adelaide urban area, gas) and Anglesea (Vic, coal) closures all go ahead then the market's going to become extremely volatile during heatwaves and there's a very real risk of a supply shortfall there too. Not good news if you're an energy user in those states and want stable prices and/or a reliable supply. Good news though if you're on the generation end and still in business - a few seriously hot days and here come the $$$. 

Personally, I'm not convinced that all those closures will actually go ahead with Torrens Island A being the most likely to stay open (largely because it's an intermittent operation anyway and there's still the 'B' station running literally right next door which makes things easier).


----------



## noco (13 June 2015)

Global Warming !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!What Global Warming?

Some more opinions that Al Gore , Tim Flannery and the Green UN will not agree......They are still persisting with their misinformed rhetoric....What a scam.


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...despite_the_cost_and_the_evidence_because_th/


----------



## Knobby22 (15 June 2015)

Smurf1976 said:


> Hazelwood isn't too bad in terms of sulphur emissions, the coal is only about 0.3% sulphur (from memory) and that's not too bad. Plenty of other coal is higher in sulphur than what's burned in the Latrobe Valley.
> 
> As for plant closures, the real issues are (1) location and (2) who owns what.
> 
> ...




Thanks Smurf

There are still the later built Loy Yang power stations in the Latrobe valley.
If we are basing it on cost only ignoring emissions then Hazelwood stays. 

From Wikapedia

 The Hazelwood Power Station is a brown coal-fuelled base-load thermal power station located in the Latrobe Valley of Victoria, Australia. Built between 1964 and 1971, the 1,600-megawatt (2,100,000 hp) capacity power station supplies up to 25% of Victoria's base load electricity and more than 5% of Australia's total energy demand.[1] Hazelwood produces 2.8% of Australia's CO2 emissions and 0.057% of world emissions. The station was listed as the *least carbon efficient power station in the OECD in a 2005 report by WWF Australia making it one of the most polluting power stations in the world*.[2]

I believe just closing down this one power station would pretty much allow Australia to meet its International commitments and greatly reduce the carbon dioxide production. Of course they are pretty low and we would most likely meet them in any case.


----------



## basilio (17 June 2015)

*The case for Climate Mobilization*

The unpalatable reality is that if we are actually going to address climate changes issues we have to move with unprecedented speed. The slow and steady options of adjustment over time are, according to every scientist in the field, incapable of achieving the necessary changes. 

I came across a group in the US that is embarking on the cause of Climate Mobilization. In effect they are trying to create a mass movement that 

1) Recognizes the need for widespread large scale changes to address CC
2) Demands the government take this action.

IMO it's a valid and well argued view. Put it this way. If the US hadn't  fully mobilised it's economy to re tool for WW2 it simply wouldn't have won. Conversely the German economy did not fully mobilise until 1943.(see Url)  (Surprised ? I was )  Anyway the website, the analysis and the actions are there to argue.  Check it out.

http://www.theclimatemobilization.org/case
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9HHPq85FjLGcjJvbGdWVUZCZVk/view
https://www.google.com.au/?gfe_rd=c...=ssl#q=when+did+Germany+fully+mobilise+in+WW2


----------



## Logique (19 June 2015)

Well it seems the warmists have a new fellow traveller - the Pope!

The world must transition away from coal, says the Pope.  And by the way birth control is still forbidden.

It's a toxic mix for the third world, and should see them remain Third.


----------



## nioka (19 June 2015)

Knobby22 said:


> Thanks Smurf
> 
> There are still the later built Loy Yang power stations in the Latrobe valley.
> If we are basing it on cost only ignoring emissions then Hazelwood stays.
> ...




One company, ESI, believes it has the answer to the brown coal problem. ESI trades as a penny dreadful stock while it claims to have patented a process that will dewater the coal and convert it to the black coal equivalent. Might be worth a gamble that they will benefit from the Popes declaration and Abbott's conversion to a global warming believer and a supporter of ESI.


----------



## Knobby22 (22 June 2015)

nioka said:


> One company, ESI, believes it has the answer to the brown coal problem. ESI trades as a penny dreadful stock while it claims to have patented a process that will dewater the coal and convert it to the black coal equivalent. Might be worth a gamble that they will benefit from the Popes declaration and Abbott's conversion to a global warming believer and a supporter of ESI.




It has really jumped the last two months!
Do you suspect some money heading their way from the Libs Nioka?


----------



## Tisme (22 June 2015)

Back in the day, John Howard signed up to Kyoto for whatever reason he had and part of the scheme was to show our green credentials. Lucky for him Peter Beattie saw fit to lock up huge tracts of forests in the north of Queensland at the same time and things were schweet for our international cred.

However that all came to an end when Noco's crowd took office and granted licences (mostly while in care taker mode at the end of 3 years of voter punishment) to bulldoze hundreds of thousands of hectares to replace the manmade wastelands of past land management. 

I'm wondering how much improvement will need to be made to the efficiency of everything else to offset the carbon increase and wildlife loss that the stripping will and thus far caused. I'm also wondering how much social perspicacity will be lost to lazy politics.


----------



## nioka (23 June 2015)

Knobby22 said:


> It has really jumped the last two months!
> Do you suspect some money heading their way from the Libs Nioka?




Abbott and his libs are more likely to help the big black coal miners than help a minnow. The technology is more likely to be adapted by those European soft coal producers. Adopting the technology in Victoria may extend the life of power generation there if that technology can be a factor in the economics of power generation using brown coal. This Liberal government will put economics ahead of environmental issues going on their current record.


----------



## Tisme (17 September 2017)

Girl gets on high horse:

http://bit.ly/2w8SdsR


----------



## basilio (18 September 2017)

Ok so you are disparaging  Stevie Wonder, for saying " if you don’t believe man-made global warming is responsible for the coming apocalypse, you must be blind or unintelligent."
So clearly Tisme you are part of that elite group lead by Donal Trump that believes Global Warming is a giant hoax.
Well done old boy.  Angry, Right, White Men need all the help they can get.


----------



## wayneL (18 September 2017)

basilio said:


> Ok so you are disparaging  Stevie Wonder, for saying " if you don’t believe man-made global warming is responsible for the coming apocalypse, you must be blind or unintelligent."
> So clearly Tisme you are part of that elite group lead by Donal Trump that believes Global Warming is a giant hoax.
> Well done old boy.  Angry, Right, White Men need all the help they can get.



So basilio defends the gross hypocrisy of the lifestyle of these self righteous clowns by going ad hom on anyone who points it out?

Just wow, wow,  wow.

No matter what anyone thinks about cc, Laher is indisputably spot on,  and you "sir", are way off track.


----------



## cynic (18 September 2017)

basilio said:


> Ok so you are disparaging  Stevie Wonder, for saying " if you don’t believe man-made global warming is responsible for the coming apocalypse, you must be blind or unintelligent."
> So clearly Tisme you are part of that elite group lead by Donal Trump that believes Global Warming is a giant hoax.
> Well done old boy.  Angry, Right, White Men need all the help they can get.



That media article, linked by Tisme, seemed to be saying more about the hypocrisy of certain entertainers, than anything else.
To me it seemed to speak strongly about the blatant hypocrisy of Carbon Crusaders. Those modern day "heroes" whom are so eager to "talk the talk" and yet most reluctant to actually "walk the walk".
They should stick to working their talents, as entertainers, and stay the FTSE out of politics.

By the way, the habitual adjusting of data, in order to support AGW theory, does make it look increasingly like it may be one almighty hoax.


----------



## basilio (18 September 2017)

Wow, Wow Wow!!

I didn't realise that Fox News understood and accepted the reality of human caused global warming.  I thought they just mindlessly denied every piece of scientific and physical evidence that pointed to these facts.  And, to top it off they trashed scientists and public figures  who expressed their concern. 

So of course their ASF followers march in lock step don't they Wayne ?
______________________________________________________________________
But enough of the dribble that passes for news from Fox. Lets get factual. Did you know there are fully *38 *scientific papers published over the past 10 years that denied Global Anthropegenic Climate Change.

That's *BIG *isn't it ?  Really and truly  .. Perhaps one could build an entire industry on this body of work to demonstate that the rest of the climate science  field are frauds or wrong .

But then what happens when these 38 papers are assessed for their replicability ?

IMPLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY
*Those 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change? A review found them all flawed*





Hard to deny. (Reuters/Stringer)
*Share
Written by*
Katherine Ellen Foley
*Obsession*
Life as Laboratory
September 05, 2017

It’s often said that of all the published scientific research on climate change, 97% of the papers conclude that global warming is real, problematic for the planet, and has been exacerbated by human activity.

But what about those 3% of papers that reach contrary conclusions? Some skeptics have suggested that the authors of studies indicating that climate change is not real, not harmful, or not man-made are bravely standing up for the truth, like maverick thinkers of the past. (Galileo is often invoked, though his fellow scientists mostly agreed with his conclusions—it was church leaders who tried to suppress them.)

Not so, according to a review published in the journal of Theoretical and Applied Climatology. The researchers tried to replicate the results of those 3% of papers—a common way to test scientific studies—and found biased, faulty results.

Katharine Hayhoe, an atmospheric scientist at Texas Tech University, worked with a team of researchers to look at the 38 papers published in peer-reviewed journals in the last decade that denied anthropogenic global warming.

“Every single one of those analyses had an error—in their assumptions, methodology, or analysis—that, when corrected, brought their results into line with the scientific consensus,” Hayhoe wrote in a Facebook post.

One of Hayhoe’s co-authors, Rasmus Benestad, an atmospheric scientist at the Norwegian Meteorological Institute, built the program using the computer language R—which conveniently works on all computer platforms—to replicate each of the papers’ results and to try to understand how they reached their conclusions. Benestad’s program found that none of the papers had results that were replicable, at least not with generally accepted science.

Broadly, there were three main errors in the papers denying climate change. Many had cherry-picked the results that conveniently supported their conclusion, while ignoring other context or records. Then there were some that applied inappropriate “curve-fitting”—in which they would step farther and farther away from data until the points matched the curve of their choosing.

And of course, sometimes the papers just ignored physics altogether. “In many cases, shortcomings are due to insufficient model evaluation, leading to results that are not universally valid but rather are an artifact of a particular experimental setup,” the authors write.

Those who assert that these papers are correct while the other 97% are wrong are holding up science where the researchers had already decided what results they sought, the authors of the review say. Good science is objective—it doesn’t care what anyone _wants_ the answers to be.

https://qz.com/1069298/the-3-of-scientific-papers-that-deny-climate-change-are-all-flawed/


----------



## cynic (18 September 2017)

basilio said:


> Wow, Wow Wow!!
> 
> I didn't realise that Fox News understood and accepted the reality of human caused global warming.  I thought they just mindlessly denied every piece of scientific and physical evidence that pointed to these facts.  And, to top it off they trashed scientists and public figures  who expressed their concern.
> 
> ...



I don't automatically believe everything I encounter via news media either! Sometimes I will see a piece that I wholeheartedly agree with. That journalist just happened to be quite correct in her assessment of the hypocritical behaviour of those entertainers. Other than snide references to entertainers as 'scientists' the content didn't seem to have much (if anything) to do with the questions surrounding beliefs (or lack thereof) in AGW, ACC or any other Apocalyptic religion. 
It did seem to be largely focussed upon recognising hypocrisy for what it is!!


----------



## cynic (18 September 2017)

basilo said:
			
		

> ...Good science is objective—it doesn’t care what anyone _wants_ the answers to be.
> ...



Too true!
Now explain to me again why you keep placing so much emphasis on that (somewhat mythical) scientific consensus?


----------



## basilio (18 September 2017)

cynic said:


> Too true!
> Now explain to me again why you keep placing so much emphasis on that (somewhat mythical) scientific consensus?




You clearly didn't appreciate the point that the 38 published papers which denied human caused climate change turn out to  be error ridden. The other 10,000 papers can stand on their own merit .

Besides which we are now way past looking at scientific papers to proce globala warmin. The facts are on the ground.


----------



## cynic (18 September 2017)

basilio said:


> You clearly didn't appreciate the point that the 38 published papers which denied human caused climate change turn out to  be error ridden. The other 10,000 papers can stand on their own merit .
> 
> Besides which we are now way past looking at scientific papers to proce globala warmin. The facts are on the ground.



You clearly misunderstood the point my post was making!

Exactly when, and where, did consensus agreement become "good science"?


----------



## wayneL (18 September 2017)

....and what facts on what ground?


----------



## Tisme (18 September 2017)

basilio said:


> Ok so you are disparaging  Stevie Wonder, for saying " if you don’t believe man-made global warming is responsible for the coming apocalypse, you must be blind or unintelligent."
> So clearly Tisme you are part of that elite group lead by Donal Trump that believes Global Warming is a giant hoax.
> Well done old boy.  Angry, Right, White Men need all the help they can get.




I just thought the woman was very good at ranting.

I really don't know why you should care about the world's condition, given your determined blancophobia to reverse the good the white people gave you =  morality compass, technology, industry, freedom of speech, democracy, rule of law, tartan kilts, etc. Instead you favour of descent for mankind into a moral abyss that will see it's eventual devolution into a Sodom and Gomorrah of decay and misery anyway; dragging decent, biologically and intellectually superior white folk down with them. It was just a great opportunity to see how far modern man with his green eyes, pale skin and supadupa brain could have gone, instead of gone begging to placating the weak.

I really don't understand why you hate whitey.


----------



## basilio (18 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> I just thought the woman was very good at ranting.
> 
> I really don't know why you should care about the world's condition, given your determined blancophobia to reverse the good the white people gave you =  morality compass, technology, industry, freedom of speech, democracy, rule of law, tartan kilts, etc. Instead you favour of descent for mankind into a moral abyss that will see it's eventual devolution into a Sodom and Gomorrah of decay and misery anyway; dragging decent, biologically and intellectually superior white folk down with them. It was just a great opportunity to see how far modern man with his green eyes, pale skin and supadupa brain could have gone, instead of gone begging to placating the weak.
> 
> I really don't understand why you hate whitey.



Seriously ?  Are you conscious ?  Are you totally awake or  perhaps in a fugue state ?  Do you have any idea what you are saying,  just winging it or attempting some  esoteric wind  up that only you and your special  friends are privvy to ?

Wake up Tizzie. Your trashing this forum.


----------



## Tisme (18 September 2017)

basilio said:


> Seriously ?  Are you conscious ?  Are you totally awake or  perhaps in a fugue state ?  Do you have any idea what you are saying,  just winging it or attempting some  esoteric wind  up that only you and your special  friends are privvy to ?
> 
> Wake up Tizzie. Your trashing this forum.





Well I reckon I have one "special friend" here who doesn't seem to think so and I reckon I could scrape up another like minded bedfellow if I paid him in whisky and blue pills.

It's coz I'm propper white isn't it .....


----------



## luutzu (18 September 2017)

basilio said:


> You clearly didn't appreciate the point that the 38 published papers which denied human caused climate change turn out to  be error ridden. The other 10,000 papers can stand on their own merit .
> 
> Besides which we are now way past looking at scientific papers to proce globala warmin. The facts are on the ground.




Like that Robin Williams character in Good Morning Vietnam: Weather forecast? You got a window? Yea! Open it!

Ah well, when science and facts don't agree with your belief, find the 3% that kinda agree with you to stand corrected.


----------



## luutzu (18 September 2017)

wayneL said:


> ....and what facts on what ground?




Maybe you cant see the ground 'cause it's flooded or washed away.


----------



## cynic (18 September 2017)

luutzu said:


> Like that Robin Williams character in Good Morning Vietnam: Weather forecast? You got a window? Yea! Open it!
> 
> Ah well, when science and facts don't agree with your belief, find the 3% that kinda agree with you to stand corrected.



Errm only 35ish % agreement, according to the (unadjusted) findings of Cook et al, and even those findings were somewhat doubtful given the liberality of his assessment criteria (i.e. his criteria did not require endorsement of a catastrophic viewpoint for inclusion in his bogus consensus findings). The poor correlation between the, somewhat limited, responses received to self assessment requests, also highlighted serious issues with the performance of that particular study.

But let's not let the mathematical facts get in the way of yet another apocalyptic religion.


----------



## luutzu (18 September 2017)

cynic said:


> Errm only 35ish % agreement, according to the (unadjusted) findings of Cook et al, and even those findings were somewhat doubtful given the liberality of his assessment criteria (i.e. his criteria did not require endorsement of a catastrophic viewpoint for inclusion in his bogus consensus findings). The poor correlation between the, somewhat limited, responses received to self assessment requests, also highlighted serious issues with the performance of that particular study.
> 
> But let's not let the mathematical facts get in the way of yet another apocalyptic religion.




There's an island in the Caribbean that just had 95% of its dwellings wiped out in a single hurricane. Texas got up to 7 feet in flood water from Harvey? Maybe that was Florida with Irma.

Then there's the death from exposure to what the storm drags in; deaths from power cuts to nursing homes; lack of food, water, money. 

To some, these hundred-year, thousand-year events happening more frequently might be apocalyptic to them. 

I guess people shouldn't live where people had managed to live for hundreds if not thousands of years. 

But sure, let's not be too hasty. It's not like being wrong and distrusting scientists on this would kill anyone (that mattered)


----------



## cynic (18 September 2017)

luutzu said:


> There's an island in the Caribbean that just had 95% of its dwellings wiped out in a single hurricane. Texas got up to 7 feet in flood water from Harvey? Maybe that was Florida with Irma.
> 
> Then there's the death from exposure to what the storm drags in; deaths from power cuts to nursing homes; lack of food, water, money.
> 
> ...



Catastrophic to those directly impacted, certainly. But that is not the point being challenged.

None of these natural weather events are without historical precedent.

The reason for increased reporting and/or affectation of larger human populations, could be quite easily attributable to the greatly increased human populace compared to yesteryear, yestercentury, yestermillenium, yesterage, yesteraeon etc.

How about we start looking at these events scientifically (for a change), rather than eagerly claiming every natural weather event as somehow demonstrating the sanctity of that highly unscientific apocalyptic religion(to which you have evidently subscribed)!


----------



## luutzu (18 September 2017)

cynic said:


> Catastrophic to those directly impacted, certainly. But that is not the point being challenged.
> 
> None of these natural weather events are without historical precedent.
> 
> ...




Harvey was the largest "water event" in US history.

Irma was the largest hurricane to come out of the Atlantic.

So they are without historical precedent.

During these two, there was another smaller one in Mexico... but who cares about the Mexicans; there was also massive bush fires in California... now in Oregon and another state.

There's massive "water event" in Bangladesh; just a couple of days ago typhoons hit Taiwan and another in the Phillipines heading towards central VN.

No one is saying that hurricane or typhoons or flooding never happen. Just these weather events are on the scales of one in a hundred year, a thousand year event... and they happen in matters of weeks and years.


----------



## cynic (18 September 2017)

luutzu said:


> Harvey was the largest "water event" in US history.
> 
> Irma was the largest hurricane to come out of the Atlantic.
> 
> ...




Could have fooled me! On an almost daily basis now, I encounter somebody reporting that some event, somewhere in the world, is historically unprecedented, and therefore somehow evidence of AGW or ACC.

As usual, you failed to address my key point, namely the impact that an increased population has on the reporting, experiencing, and assessment of the overall impact of these events.

A weather event, when it hits a more densely populated area, can easily be deemed to be without historical precedent in terms of lives lost and property damage!
That doesn't automatically mean that the event itself is of greater historical magnitude in objective terms, only in terms of lives lost and/or property damaged.

Anyone seriously wanting to know the objective scientific facts , needs to look a lot more deeply into the actual measurements rather than blindly accepting sensationalised media headlines and reports.


----------



## luutzu (19 September 2017)

cynic said:


> Could have fooled me! On an almost daily basis now, I encounter somebody reporting that some event, somewhere in the world, is historically unprecedented, and therefore somehow evidence of AGW or ACC.
> 
> As usual, you failed to address my key point, namely the impact that an increased population has on the reporting, experiencing, and assessment of the overall impact of these events.
> 
> ...




Oh! We're getting philosophical with "if a tree fell and no one hears it..."

Pretty sure Harvey and Irma was "biggest" by water volumes and not how many people it affected and whether the drainage weren't cleared etc.


----------



## cynic (19 September 2017)

luutzu said:


> Oh! We're getting philosophical with "if a tree fell and no one hears it..."
> 
> Pretty sure Harvey and Irma was "biggest" by water volumes and not how many people it affected and whether the drainage weren't cleared etc.



How about we get past the headlines and examine some really basic facts.

At category 4, I am pretty certain that Harvey wasn't anywhere near the biggest of Atlantic hurricanes. More than 30 category 5's have been recorded this past century!

The "water volumes" argument appears to be nothing more than a creative attempt, to create lame justification, for claiming absence of historical precedence to this event.

And how can people honestly claim that these phenomena have been determined as unnaturally (as opposed to naturally) caused, when those same people aren't even clear on the actual facts!


----------



## wayneL (19 September 2017)

cynic said:


> How about we get past the headlines and examine some really basic facts.
> 
> At category 4, I am pretty certain that Harvey wasn't anywhere near the biggest of Atlantic hurricanes. More than 30 category 5's have been recorded this past century!
> 
> ...



They are not interested in facts cynic, they are interested in creating alarm, knowing that 95% will never analyse the data. 

Even when subsequently debunked, the new faux fact is in the public psyche,  job done.


----------



## luutzu (19 September 2017)

cynic said:


> How about we get past the headlines and examine some really basic facts.
> 
> At category 4, I am pretty certain that Harvey wasn't anywhere near the biggest of Atlantic hurricanes. More than 30 category 5's have been recorded this past century!
> 
> ...




Facts, says you.

I'm pretty sure Irma was Cat 5, then downgraded to Cat4 as it approaches Florida. And just read again, from Reuters, that Irma was the biggest to come out of the Atlantic. 

It killed some 80 Americans? 8 elderly died due to no A/C in their nursing home, causing heat stroke and cardiac arrest or something right? 

Lucky Irma didn't take out Florida's two nuclear power plants. Else it'd be another two Fukushimas. 

Oh yea, they're only half way through their hurricane season and already the number of hurricanes are above the season's average. At least that's what the fake news from Reuters said.


----------



## luutzu (19 September 2017)

wayneL said:


> They are not interested in facts cynic, they are interested in creating alarm, knowing that 95% will never analyse the data.
> 
> Even when subsequently debunked, the new faux fact is in the public psyche,  job done.




Yes, greenies commies lies and fake the stats. All so that people can live, or live in a safer and healthier environment. The bastards!


----------



## notting (19 September 2017)

Anyone who denies climate change, given what all valid scientific findings have been indicating for a long long time,(long before it was regular news) is an idiot.
How stupid to get sucked in by c@nts like this - 







> *Exxon Mobil acknowledged* in research and internal communications that climate change is real and caused by human activity, *but it sowed doubt* in its ads, a Harvard study found.



https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/23/exx...ic-on-climate-change-harvard-study-finds.html
Abbot
Howard 
to name 2.


----------



## cynic (19 September 2017)

luutzu said:


> Facts, says you.
> 
> I'm pretty sure Irma was Cat 5, then downgraded to Cat4 as it approaches Florida. And just read again, from Reuters, that Irma was the biggest to come out of the Atlantic.
> 
> ...



If you took the time to check some facts, you'd realise that Allen caused over three times as many deaths, and achieved greater wind speeds than Irma. It also achieved cat 5 status on more occasions than Irma.

But I already know, from your postings, that you are disinclined to investigate any facts that happen to conflict with your apocalyptic religion.


----------



## Tisme (19 September 2017)

luutzu said:


> Yes, greenies commies lies and fake the stats. All so that people can live, or live in a safer and healthier environment. The bastards!




It's not fair to simply imply the Greens Party is fatuous and fifth columnist, it's only the members and those who vote for them that fall into that category.


----------



## luutzu (19 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> It's not fair to simply imply the Greens Party is fatuous and fifth columnist, it's only the members and those who vote for them that fall into that category.




Yea that's too true.


----------



## luutzu (19 September 2017)

cynic said:


> If you took the time to check some facts, you'd realise that Allen caused over three times as many deaths, and achieved greater wind speeds than Irma. It also achieved cat 5 status on more occasions than Irma.
> 
> But I already know, from your postings, that you are disinclined to investigate any facts that happen to conflict with your apocalyptic religion.




Soo... you did agreed that whereever catastrophic Climate Change "weather event" happen, it's apocalyptic to the people. Yet somehow CC is not apocalyptic... because? Because it's not apocalyptic to those in areas not affected? It doesn't occur all over the world all at once? 

But let's get to the facts with Wikipedia....

Some 35 Cat5 hurricane tracing back to 1924.

Since 2003, there's been 11 Cat5. 

hmmm... circle of life I guess. The climate as it has always been. 

You can do some more maths with the figures in that wiki article... wind speed, duration... 

Interesting stat is that in some 93 years, say 100... there's 35 Cat5. That's 100/35 = 2.86, or one every 3 years?

In the last 14 years there's been 11.

And the forecasts from climate scientists is it will get worst... but according to you and friends, it'll average out about the same as the previous 100 years... so yah...


----------



## cynic (20 September 2017)

luutzu said:


> Soo... you did agreed that whereever catastrophic Climate Change "weather event" happen, it's apocalyptic to the people. Yet somehow CC is not apocalyptic... because? Because it's not apocalyptic to those in areas not affected? It doesn't occur all over the world all at once?
> 
> But let's get to the facts with Wikipedia....
> 
> ...



No matter how much you statisticise, the unnatural causation, you so hastily claim, remains unproven!
According to my reading of wiki, (which happens to be notorious for inaccuracy in its reporting of facts, but I'll play along for now), there were 32 cat 5's in a 94 year period (i.e. 1924 to present year) occurring an average of once every 3 years (approximately). 10 of these occurred inside a 14 year span, but in reality these represent all Atlantic cat 5s for the past 18-19 years!
Now if you take the time to look back at the 1930s, you will surely notice a 7 year period where 6 cat 5's were reported to have occurred! Of course that was followed by a 14 year period where there were none whatsoever! In effect, nothing about this 94 year period suggests, to me, that any confident conclusions can be meaningfully drawn from comparing 14 year (or less) samplings to a 94 year mean! The sample size is way too small for such a sporadic distribution!! And far more than 94 years history will be required!!!

So Mr. statistical genius, did you even bother to do any standard deviation calculations on this data to see where that 11 year period resides within the bell curve, and whether or not it can be considered statistically meaningful, before presuming it to be a natural aberration?


----------



## cynic (20 September 2017)

luutzu said:


> Soo... you did agreed that whereever catastrophic Climate Change "weather event" happen, it's apocalyptic to the people. Yet somehow CC is not apocalyptic... because? Because it's not apocalyptic to those in areas not affected? It doesn't occur all over the world all at once?
> ....



Please do me the courtesy of either quoting my actual words, in their full context, or not at all!

What you have done here, is totally misinterpreted, and subsequently misconstrued, what I was actually saying!!

If you genuinely misunderstood one of my earlier posts, at least do me the courtesy of quoting it when seeking clarification! 
Entwining concurrence with your personal religion, into your faulty recollections of what I have actually posted is simply not on, 
and 
I ABSOLUTELY WILL NOT STAND FOR ANY MORE OF IT FROM YOU!!!

I can currently envisage only three reasons that could explain your doing this! None of those reasons is complimentary to yourself! (My efforts to find a kinder interpretation are continuing, but have yet to produce a single result! Suffice to say you have really FTSEd me off big time on this one! - not cool!)


----------



## Tisme (20 September 2017)

Has anyone paused to think that whenever there is a catastrophic weather event there's always climate change advocates and greenies around at the time?


----------



## SirRumpole (20 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> Has anyone paused to think that whenever there is a catastrophic weather event there's always climate change advocates and greenies around at the time?




That's true, and when temperature records are broken year after year there are always people who just turn the air con up a bit and say it's always been like this.


----------



## luutzu (20 September 2017)

cynic said:


> No matter how much you statisticise, the unnatural causation, you so hastily claim, remains unproven!
> According to my reading of wiki, (which happens to be notorious for inaccuracy in its reporting of facts, but I'll play along for now), there were 32 cat 5's in a 94 year period (i.e. 1924 to present year) occurring an average of once every 3 years (approximately). 10 of these occurred inside a 14 year span, but in reality these represent all Atlantic cat 5s for the past 18-19 years!
> Now if you take the time to look back at the 1930s, you will surely notice a 7 year period where 6 cat 5's were reported to have occurred! Of course that was followed by a 14 year period where there were none whatsoever! In effect, nothing about this 94 year period suggests, to me, that any confident conclusions can be meaningfully drawn from comparing 14 year (or less) samplings to a 94 year mean! The sample size is way too small for such a sporadic distribution!! And far more than 94 years history will be required!!!
> 
> So Mr. statistical genius, did you even bother to do any standard deviation calculations on this data to see where that 11 year period resides within the bell curve, and whether or not it can be considered statistically meaningful, before presuming it to be a natural aberration?





A lot of things doesn't make sense, to you. 

The maths is simple... 35 Cat5 over a 94 year period; 11 of those occurred in the last 14 years. 

Houston, we have no problem. Need more data. 

Ah man, if you're annoyed at my interpretation of what you admitted, imagine how those climate scientists feel hearing Climate Change denial.


----------



## wayneL (20 September 2017)

You'd better have a word to Leo et al then luutzu.


----------



## newanimal (20 September 2017)

It's my understanding that CC is real, but not man made for the most part. It's a cyclical thing affecting the whole solar system in relation to it's crossing in and out of the galactic plane in a sine wave manner and is subject to more intense cosmic radiation as it does so. Happens every 26K years or so. IOW, every planet in the solar system is being affected including the sun.  PTB (powers that be) know this but take advantage of public ignorance or unawareness to propose things like "carbon tax" and advance other agendas.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 September 2017)

newanimal said:


> It's my understanding that CC is real, but not man made for the most part. It's a cyclical thing affecting the whole solar system in relation to it's crossing in and out of the galactic plane in a sine wave manner and is subject to more intense cosmic radiation as it does so. Happens every 26K years or so. IOW, every planet in the solar system is being affected including the sun.  PTB (powers that be) know this but take advantage of public ignorance or unawareness to propose things like "carbon tax" and advance other agendas.




Subsequent studies have cast doubt on that theory.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2009/jun/25/galactic-link-to-climate-change-in-doubt

https://www.universetoday.com/33538...tied-to-earth-passing-through-galactic-plane/


----------



## wayneL (20 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Subsequent studies have cast doubt on that theory.
> 
> http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2009/jun/25/galactic-link-to-climate-change-in-doubt
> 
> https://www.universetoday.com/33538...tied-to-earth-passing-through-galactic-plane/



The thing is Horace, there is doubt about every theory/hypothesis.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 September 2017)

wayneL said:


> The thing is Horace, there is doubt about every theory/hypothesis.




Which is fine, when the doubt is based on scientific evidence.


----------



## cynic (20 September 2017)

luutzu said:


> A lot of things doesn't make sense, to you.
> 
> The maths is simple... 35 Cat5 over a 94 year period; 11 of those occurred in the last 14 years.
> 
> ...



I am annoyed by your continued efforts at misrepresentation of the things I actually post! If you want to claim that I admitted to something then quote my actual comment, in its full context, or SHUT THE FTSE UP!

And please stop throwing in extra cat 5s. (Your personal flatulence, no matter how odious the stench,  doesn't count on the hurricane wind scales!)
Even if you include the latecomer to this party, Maria, it only makes 33 and not the 35 cat 5's that you keep claiming!

And yes, any idiot with an education in statistical analysis, should be able to understand why a great deal more than 94 years of data, is required to draw reliable conclusions about, that 14 (which should rightly be 15, not 14) year period, when interpreting the significance of events that have a mean occurence of approximately 1/3.

Since you are opting for the use of statistical analysis, rather than continuing to insult my intelligence with your part baked effort at conning the mathematically illiterate, how about you take the time to see that analysis through to a basic level of completion, at the very least?

You claim the "maths is simple" and yet you haven't even taken the time to calculate the standard deviations, so that it can then be shown where that recent 14 year (actually better make that 15 years) truly sits, within the bell curve, for that 94 years of data.

 So are you willing to finish the job and see what that (insufficiently) small data population is truly suggesting?

Or are the standard deviation calculations beyond your simple mathematical comprehension?

Or, could it be, that you have already calculated the answer, and decided that you'd rather not show the results due to your discomfort in accepting the truth?


----------



## SirRumpole (20 September 2017)

cynic said:


> Or are the standard deviation calculations beyond your simple mathematical comprehension?




Why don't you do the maths and let us know the result ?


----------



## notting (20 September 2017)

Cynic If you want to rely on statistics then count the number of QUALIFIED scientists that conclude from their EDUCATED analysis that the climate change being experienced is man made.

Your so called respect for statistics, if you had any, would then have fully delivered you into the camp of certainty that climate change is man made!

Why? Because all the genuine scientists who actually know what they are talking about and use scientific methodology to conclude that climate change can be man made and if it were man made this is how it would be occurring and will continue to occur.  These are the scientifically validated cause and effects resulting from such things as greater carbon particles saturation and methane gas etc in the air.
The petty fringe arguments you have chosen to dismiss on the basis of there being other possible causes of climate change is utterly untenable. There is no evidence that these, your alternative naturally occurring climate change causes are happening or causing it *over and above* the *validated causes present* that are *man made*.
Your clearly irrational and untenable positions evidence pales in comparison to the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and only show you have no bipartisan respect for statistics what so ever.

Your like a person who is covered in melanomas and asked a medical student what the spot on your arse is and she tells you it's a freckle.  So you latch on to that and throw out the rest and say the rest of blotches and grotesque spots all over your body are most likely freckles, despite the fact that your limbs a falling off and your sh1tting out your mouth.

Why you disagree with the *massive majority *of unbiased or Exxon paid QUALIFIED scientists and well established scientific research and DATA is not a rational or statistically based position at all in the broader picture.
Rather than relying on unqualified hack maths, fringe anomalies and irrelevant un established hypothesis to dismiss man made climate change you should man up and and go live in Caribbean and be sure to take your family because the chance of there being another hurricane like that again in another 100 years are, according to you, utterly improbable. Be sure to take a diesel generator and a few cows.


----------



## wayneL (20 September 2017)

notting said:


> Cynic If you want to rely on statistics then count the number of QUALIFIED scientists that conclude from their EDUCATED analysis that the climate change being experienced is man made.
> 
> Your so called respect for statistics, if you had any, would then have fully delivered you into the camp of certainty that climate change is man made!
> 
> ...



Pffffft, 

Only those scientists in your particular echo chamber. Step outside the box man.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 September 2017)

wayneL said:


> Pffffft,
> 
> Only those scientists in your particular echo chamber. Step outside the box man.




I suppose you listen to the great scientist Malcolm Roberts ?


----------



## cynic (20 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Why don't you do the maths and let us know the result ?



Because I am not the one boldly claiming that statistical analysis of an insufficiently small data population has anything meaningful to say about the apocalyptic climate religion!

Furthermore, it should already be perfectly obvious why it is important that people complete their own homework, rather than expecting others to complete it for them!


----------



## PZ99 (20 September 2017)

I love global warming threads like this... everyone gets to vent their superior knowledge on a subject that even the qualified experts can't agree on 

Just did a search for the words "facts" and got 200+ results. LOL


----------



## wayneL (20 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> I suppose you listen to the great scientist Malcolm Roberts ?



Thanks for your high level input Horace


----------



## cynic (20 September 2017)

Notting, please take the time to read all of my posts, to all climate related threads on this forum, before making your hasty accusations!


notting said:


> Cynic If you want to rely on statistics then count the number of QUALIFIED scientists that conclude from their EDUCATED analysis that the climate change being experienced is man made.



You mean like Cook et. al did, when the unadulterated results of their study, indicated that, of the approx 30K paper abstracts examined, only 35ish% appeared to be endorsing an AGW viewpoint.

Anyway, I would be very interested to know what your definition of "qualified scientists" actually is!


> Your so called respect for statistics, if you had any, would then have fully delivered you into the camp of certainty that climate change is man made!



Before boldly accusing me of disrespect for a branch of mathematics that I happen to view with some admiration, please show me some statistics, that can objectively demonstrate that, anthropogenically caused, climate change is occurring. In doing so please remember, that opinion polls of scientists are not valid substitutes for the objective and rigorous practice of science!


> Why? Because all the genuine scientists who actually know what they are talking about and use scientific methodology to conclude that climate change can be man made and if it were man made this is how it would be occurring and will continue to occur.  These are the scientifically validated cause and effects resulting from such things as greater carbon particles saturation and methane gas etc in the air.



So it's "genuine scientists" now then is it!
So who exactly is it that decides which scientists, are sufficiently "genuine" and/or "qualified" to have a valid opinion, and what the heck has opinionation got to do with the true practice of objective science, anyway!
I suggest you examine the dictionary definitions of the words hypothesis,proof, science, fact, and opinion. My reason for saying this is that from your post I am concerned that you may have overlooked some essentially important distinctions.


> The petty fringe arguments you have chosen to dismiss on the basis of there being other possible causes of climate change is utterly untenable. There is no evidence that these, your alternative naturally occurring climate change causes are happening or causing it *over and above* the *validated causes present* that are *man made*.
> Your clearly irrational and untenable positions evidence pales in comparison to the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and only show you have no bipartisan respect for statistics what so ever.



Actually, based upon your post, I strongly suggest you clean up your own backyard before boldly condemning mine.

Show me some impartially collated statistical analyses, supportive of your stance on this issue, which can be seen to objectively demonstrate my skepticism as being totally unwarranted, or stop FTSEing presuming the right to preach your FTSEing religion at me!


> Your like a person who is covered in melanomas and asked a medical student what the spot on your arse is and she tells you it's a freckle.  So you latch on to that and throw out the rest and say the rest of blotches and grotesque spots all over your body are most likely freckles, despite the fact that your limbs a falling off and your sh1tting out your mouth.



Again, I strongly suspect that your backyard is in more dire need of attention than my own!


> Why you disagree with the *massive majority *of unbiased or Exxon paid QUALIFIED scientists and well established scientific research and DATA is not a rational or statistically based position at all in the broader picture.
> Rather than relying on unqualified hack maths, fringe anomalies and irrelevant un established hypothesis to dismiss man made climate change you should man up and and go live in Caribbean and be sure to take your family because the chance of there being another hurricane like that again in another 100 years are, according to you, utterly improbable. Be sure to take a diesel generator and a few cows.



I tried to find their research on the net , (about a year or two ago using google scholar), and all the search seemed to come up with was page after page of other people's papers with headlines boldly betraying their intent to demonise the oil industry.

If instead of ranting at me, you can post the original papers of this "massive majority" of "qualified scientists" here, so that I might examine them, I would be most appreciative.


----------



## notting (20 September 2017)

wayneL said:


> Pffffft,
> 
> Only those scientists in your particular echo chamber. Step outside the box man.




Pfffft is clearly all you have.

As stated my position relies on all pervasive statics of the full spectrum of the scientific field, no single scientist, isolated finding or climate event or measure. 

The weight of that is irrefutable!  

If you have a larger echo chamber then perhaps you can introduce me to it.  We'd all love to see your hand!

Further, I was first introduced to the 'greenhouse effect.,' as it was then called, in 1979 by SCIENTISTS expert in that field, and in those days, there were *NO* such Exxon backed beat up counter positions.  It was as plain as day - common sense so to speak.

There was little evidence it was effecting the climte at that time and the scientists accepted that too at the time.  The scientists, then, were simply warning that if we continue it will start to happen and that* is exactly what is happening *40 years later.

Even when the Ozone layer become "newsworthy" these same scientists and the broader scientific community said, back then, that although the 'greenhouse effect' was not showing evidence of harming the planet at that time, the greenhouse effect was something *they were far more concerned about*.  Than the Ozone layer which was a problem and was addressed as well as we could, due to no dick heads making up bullsh1t to fudge the facts.

There was no dispute and no idiot Exxon strategists needing to plot against the science because it did not effect and would not effect them in *their own time*!!  The only reason climate change is disputed today is because alternate fuel sources will be developed and put a lot of fools off their thrones. The disputes have nothing to do with science and even less with statistics.
So dumb


----------



## cynic (20 September 2017)

notting said:


> Pfffft is clearly all you have.
> 
> As stated my position relies on all pervasive statics of the full spectrum of the scientific field, no single scientist, isolated finding or climate event or measure.
> 
> ...



Okay! I think I can now see how we have come to different opinions on the merits of this matter!

Just how much weight do you require before deeming the matter irrefutable?

Weren't Dr Soon's research findings enough to, at the very least, raise a credible challenge, to the wisdom of those boldly claiming the irrefutability of the AGW hypothesis?



> ...The disputes have nothing to do with science and even less with statistics.
> So dumb



I would agree that this, the last sentence of your post, definitely has great relevance, to so terribly many of the alarmist claims, I have witnessed to date.


----------



## wayneL (20 September 2017)

notting said:


> Pfffft is clearly all you have.
> 
> As stated my position relies on all pervasive statics of the full spectrum of the scientific field, no single scientist, isolated finding or climate event or measure.
> 
> ...



Oh I've got a lot more than pfffft.

But In the face of unreasonable and biased belligerence,  it's about all I'm willing to expend.

I have more interesting and productive fish to fry with my time than trying to reason with zealots


----------



## Tisme (20 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Why don't you do the maths and let us know the result ?





First we have to find the probability of Lies, Damn Lies and Damn Truth.


----------



## Knobby22 (21 September 2017)

cynic said:


> Weren't Dr Soon's research findings enough to, at the very least, raise a credible challenge, to the wisdom of those boldly claiming the irrefutability of the AGW hypothesis?




Dr Soon has no evidence (and actually there is evidence stating the opposite of what he proposed) but the money goes a long way especially in Malaysia, that highly regarded hub of scientific research.

 In 2011, it was revealed that Soon received over $1 million from petroleum and coal interests since 2001.[30] Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics documents obtained by Greenpeace under the US Freedom of Information Act show that the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation gave Soon two grants totaling $175,000 in 2005–06 and again in 2010. Multiple grants from the American Petroleum Institute between 2001 and 2007 totalled $274,000, and grants from Exxon Mobil totalled $335,000 between 2005 and 2010. Other coal and oil industry sources which funded him include the Mobil Foundation, the Texaco Foundation and the Electric Power Research Institute. Soon has stated unequivocally that he has "never been motivated by financial reward in any of my scientific research"

Once again, follow the money. When you believe in something with no proof it must be faith.
You can't fool all the people all the time but you can fool some of the people some of the time. That is all it takes to slow change.
As Notting said, the greenhouse effect was considered non controversial back in the 1970s.


----------



## cynic (21 September 2017)

Knobby22 said:


> Dr Soon has no evidence (and actually there is evidence stating the opposite of what he proposed) but the money goes a long way especially in Malaysia, that highly regarded hub of scientific research.
> 
> In 2011, it was revealed that Soon received over $1 million from petroleum and coal interests since 2001.[30] Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics documents obtained by Greenpeace under the US Freedom of Information Act show that the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation gave Soon two grants totaling $175,000 in 2005–06 and again in 2010. Multiple grants from the American Petroleum Institute between 2001 and 2007 totalled $274,000, and grants from Exxon Mobil totalled $335,000 between 2005 and 2010. Other coal and oil industry sources which funded him include the Mobil Foundation, the Texaco Foundation and the Electric Power Research Institute. Soon has stated unequivocally that he has "never been motivated by financial reward in any of my scientific research"
> 
> ...



Follow the money says knobby!

Okay! Let's follow the money on climate research then!
https://judithcurry.com/2015/05/06/is-federal-funding-biasing-climate-research/

https://judithcurry.com/2016/08/23/measuring-bias-in-the-u-s-federally-funded-climate-research/

In the meantime, whilst you're following the money and working out which (if any) of your acclaimed climate scientists still merit your faith (based upon your proposed "follow the money" methodology), perhaps you could take just a moment to point me in the direction of this "evidence stating the opposite" to which you refer in your rebuttal of Dr Soon's research. In so doing, be sure to include references to all sources of funding of the associated research, because, (Climate forbid!) we wouldn't want to be fooled by any scientist bold enough to accept funding for their continued research, now, would we?! We simply cannot have that now, can we, because it just wouldn't be Climate!


----------



## Knobby22 (21 September 2017)

He is one of the guys on the Crooks and Liars website:

http://crooksandliars.com/2015/02/how-often-do-climate-scientists-have
you can read the evidence there.

He isn't qualified.
Soon attended the University of Southern California and obtained a Ph.D in aerospace engineering in 1991.


----------



## wayneL (21 September 2017)

Knobby22 said:


> He is one of the guys on the Crooks and Liars website:
> 
> http://crooksandliars.com/2015/02/how-often-do-climate-scientists-have
> you can read the evidence there.
> ...




I wonder if Schmidt,  Hanson,  Cooke, Gore, et al, etc and the rest of the crooks and liars appear on that Crooks and Liars site?

I wonder why?

Instructive? 

Bias? 

Crooks and liars?


----------



## Knobby22 (21 September 2017)

*The famous Climate hustler, Marc Morano is in trouble. He was paid a huge salary to sow doubt and he was very good at it, able to lie on TV with a straight face.*

*Will the Climate Hustler Go Down with ExxonMobil?*


*The future for Marc Morano and the rest of the cast of climate deniers is uncertain. The New York Attorney General issued a subpoena (link is external) to the oil giant, initiating a process that could eventually implicate people like Marc. Congress (link is external) and presidential candidates (link is external) alike already have their eyes on ExxonMobil, which could lead to more unearthed evidence that Exxen knew it was deceiving the public in a false manner.*

*If we bump into Marc in Paris this December, for the next round of global climate negotiations, we'll be sure to ask how he feels about the unfolding lawsuits.*


----------



## cynic (21 September 2017)

Knobby22 said:


> He is one of the guys on the Crooks and Liars website:
> 
> http://crooksandliars.com/2015/02/how-often-do-climate-scientists-have
> you can read the evidence there.




My, oh my! What a find!

Geez! If only I had done my fact checking against the "crooksandliars", political news blog, website!

I could then have saved myself the embarrassment of expressing belief in research that was purportedly performed in accordance with the principles underlying the scientific method!

How kind of you knobby, to so promptly correct me for my act of heresy!

I now recognise that nobody, other than those still blinded by their faith in the scientific method, need bother to look further than a political news blog website (e.g."crooksandliars"), when factchecking a scientist's actual research findings!

But before we part, can you help me just a little further here!

Amidst all those opinions expressed on your esteemed "crooksandliars", political news blog website, I cannot seem to espy, or otherwise discern, the scientific "evidence stating the opposite of what he proposed".

Are you quite certain, that there actually exists, any reliable scientific evidence, amidst all the opinionated submissions that one typically finds on blogs dedicated to the selective representation of political news?

I am still eager to examine that evidence(presuming, of course, that such evidence does exist).

So, can I expect to see the evidence any time soon?

And whilst we're at it, can you clarify exactly what it is that you believe Dr Soon "isn't qualified" to do and/or be?


----------



## orr (21 September 2017)

cynic said:


> My, oh my! What a find!
> 
> Geez!
> 
> ...




Are you blind to the dissapppearing Arctic Ice Sheet...?
Are you blind to Global sea rise and it's accelerating rate?
Are you blind to documented global temperature rise?
Global diminishing glaciation?
These are incontestable.
Queenslanders never deserved the Great barrier Reef anyway...
Are these things some sort of concocted aberration in your mind and nothing to do with theorised result of determinations of those with insite in atmospheric science developed over 150 years ago and have only been reaffirmed all inquiery since?

You can...
Of course that's option is your choice...
But I have trouble finding any postive with a completly unsubstituted position.
_                            painted face red nose big shoes & lukewarm...._


----------



## cynic (21 September 2017)

orr said:


> Are you blind to the dissapppearing Arctic Ice Sheet...?
> Are you blind to Global sea rise and it's accelerating rate?
> Are you blind to documented global temperature rise?
> Global diminishing glaciation?
> ...



Incontestable! Spoken like a true zealot!

Now let me guess!

If someone were to agree with some, or all, of these things you claim here, you'll next be telling them that you somehow know that none of them would be happening in the absence of those "polluting" CO2 emissions resulting from the burning of that "dirty" fuel stuff that's marketed to "denialist" humans by that "corrupt" oil industry! (Am I right?)


----------



## cynic (21 September 2017)

By the way knobby, 
I am still eagerly awaiting that "evidence stating the opposite".

At this point, I am more than happy to deem the continued absence, of that evidence, as your tacit retraction of your criticisms of Dr Soon's integrity, credentials and research findings.


----------



## wayneL (22 September 2017)

cynic said:


> By the way knobby,
> I am still eagerly awaiting that "evidence stating the opposite".
> 
> At this point, I am more than happy to deem the continued absence, of that evidence, as your tacit retraction of your criticisms of Dr Soon's integrity, credentials and research findings.




It's their standard MO cynic, attack credibility by any means (usually innuendo),  rather than conducting a sensible scientific debate.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 September 2017)

wayneL said:


> It's their standard MO cynic, attack credibility by any means (usually innuendo),  rather than conducting *a sensible scientific debate*.




That's already been done by 97% of climate scientists.


----------



## wayneL (22 September 2017)

Well you should do some due diligence,  Horace. Because that's about as fallacious a comment ive seen for a very long time


----------



## Knobby22 (22 September 2017)

You guys may find this surprising but I lead a busy life.
Soons argument that the Sun is causing global warming is obviously incorrect as per the graph above.

And cynic, you had better change your name if you have no doubts on his credibility, and I did tell you what his qualifications were previously. The guy has a phd in aerospace engineering, I don't think his qualifications cut it but you obviously differ in this judgement.

He's on the crooks and liars website because he is a corrupt lying weasel. $1mil goes a long way in Malaysia.


----------



## explod (22 September 2017)

wayneL said:


> It's their standard MO cynic, attack credibility by any means (usually innuendo),  rather than conducting a sensible scientific debate.




"by any means"rubbish.  The 97% of science agreement is pretty conclusive when earnestly sifted. 

Climate and its change is a difficult and unpredictive pathway.   Initially the prime focus was on heat and a lack of water.   However the displacement of moisture from the warming poles has created increased rainstorms and the cooling out from the poles.  This has created a sense that all may be ok. 

Anyway,  hottest day ever recorded in NSW for this time of the year on mainstream news overnight.  However I am not suggesting anything is conclusive but for some of you DENIERS on here to say we have not got a looming problem because of our polluting coal and oil is real head in the sand knumscole stuff in my view. 

Sure the changes required are difficult and initially costly to our big business but in the proven efficient alternatives (like horses to cars) there are some great opportunities.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 September 2017)

wayneL said:


> Well you should do some due diligence,  Horace. Because that's about as fallacious a comment ive seen for a very long time




No good arguing with you wanyebow, it's all been said before.


----------



## wayneL (22 September 2017)

Yes, the 97% had been debunked countless times Horace. It existence remains only in the echo chamber of the Hansenite faithful.


----------



## basilio (22 September 2017)

"Last word Wayne"  Always has to* insist *on repeating his deluded mantras. That's dedication to a cause...


----------



## cynic (22 September 2017)

Knobby22 said:


> View attachment 72712
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Mr "I prefer the contents of the 'crookandliars.com', political news blog website, to peer reviewed scientific publications" has spoken!

And furthermore, he has even presented a chart!
Can you believe that ladies, gentlemen (and others)!
An actual chart! Yipppeeee! (I keep falling out of my chair in all of this excitement!!)

Anyway, now that I have had a chance to regain my breath, after splitting my sides with laughter, I shall endeavour to respond to the absurd with a more serious demeanour.

Knobby, following your excitement at discovering this chart, did you take the time to check the academic and experiential credentials of the author/s behind its composition? If so, how do those credentials compare to those uncovered by your "investigation" of Dr Soon's?

And what of the data source/s?

Was this chart constructed from raw (i.e. unadjusted data)?

Were any models involved, if so which ones? (Hint: the semantically appropriate acronym SATIRE springs to mind!)

And even more importantly, did you take the time to...


Knobby22 said:


> ...
> Once again, follow the money...




 And by the way let's not forget that...


Knobby22 said:


> ... When you believe in something with no proof it must be faith.
> You can't fool all the people all the time but you can fool some of the people some of the time...



Which is so very good to know!

Now, bearing those expressed sentiments in mind, please explain to me again, why it is that you have come to have so much "faith" in a political news blog website entitled:"crooksandliars.com"?


----------



## basilio (22 September 2017)

God your dim Cynic.. Really and truly.  Of all the pieces of cold hard facts you want to argue with you choose the clearest refutation of Willie Soons disproven hypothesis that global warming is driven by the Sun.

For your information this is the providence of that graph
_Figure 1: Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007. TSI from 1979 to 2015 from the World Radiation Center (see their PMOD index page for data updates). Plots of the most recent solar irradiance can be found at the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics LISIRD site.
_
There is a clear case for saying that increases and decreases in the brightness of the Sun will affect temperatures on Earth_._ However the past 50 years has seen the overriding effect of human generated increases in greenhouse gases as the driver in increases in  global temperatures.  If you want to see the breakdown of how the Sun, Volcanos and human activity affect global temperature check out the graphs and explanation at the url below. You'll note that since 1980 the BIG impact on global temoperatures has been us.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

You also question what relevance a "political" blog like Crooks and Liars has in determining Willie Soons credentials as a  credible climate scientist. Would it help you if we can source the article from another website ?  Perhaps call it Polluter Watch ?  (Actually that is where it originally came from..)
But the source is irrelevant. The meat and potatoes of the article is the pulling together of the myriad scientists who have analysed Willies work and found it wanting. A sample from the article.

_Telford isn't the only scientist baffled by Soon's awkward presentations. University of Rochester astrophysicist Adam Frank details his "depressing" encounter with Willie Soon, at an event and a personal encounter, from NPR (link is external):

When it was announced that Soon was giving a talk at the University of Rochester, I knew it would be interesting. I was more than willing to hear what the man had to say. The whole point of being a scientist is, after all, to try to leave your preconceptions at the door and let the work speak for itself. I also wanted to understand Soon's own thinking about the role he was playing as a public skeptic.

On all counts I was disappointed.

Taken as nothing more than a scientific talk, Dr. Soon's presentation was, in my opinion, pretty bad. I watch a lot of these things. It's part of my job. If Soon had been giving a Ph.D defense, he would have been skewered. I was left without a clear line of argument or clear justifications for his claims. More importantly, for a topic this contentious there was insufficient discussion of the voluminous and highly detailed response critics have offered to his claims that solar activity accounts for most observed climate variability. Many of my colleagues listening to the talk said they felt the same way. I came away thinking, "Is that the best they have?"

The presentation that Prof. Adam Frank found depressing was focused on Soon's long-since-discredited thesis that the Sun, not industrial pollution, is responsible for climate change. Citing peer-reviewed material on Skeptical Science (link is external), science reporter Chris Mooney re-examines how Soon's primary argument is debunked, for the Washington Post (link is external): 

[T]he idea that the sun is currently driving climate change is strongly rejected by the world’s leading authority on climate science, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which found (link is external) in its latest (2013) report that “There is high confidence that changes in total solar irradiance have not contributed to the increase in global mean surface temperature over the period 1986 to 2008, based on direct satellite measurements of total solar irradiance.”

The IPCC “basically says that global warming is not caused by the sun,” says Gerald Meehl (link is external), a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. “The strongest evidence for this is the record of satellite measurements of solar output since the late 1970s that show no increasing trend in solar output during a period of rapid global warming.” [...]

A recent scientific review article (link is external) on climate and the sun similarly notes “the lack of detection of an underlying irradiance trend in the past three decades,” and concludes, in rather strong terms, that:

Claims that the Sun has caused as much as 70% of the recent global warming … presents fundamental puzzles. It requires that the Sun’s brightness increased more in the past century than at any time in the past millennium, including over the past 30 years, contrary to the direct space-based observations. And it requires, as well, that Earth’s climate be insensitive to well-measured increases in greenhouse gases at the same time that it is excessively sensitive to poorly known solar brightness changes. Both scenarios are far less plausible than the simple attribution of most (90%) industrial global warming to anthropogenic effects, rather than to the Sun.

So in sum: It’s not that the sun can’t influence climate. It can, and it does. And climate scientists have accordingly been studying the influence of the sun for many years.

http://polluterwatch.org/blog/clima...nded-fakexpert-willie-soon-was-never-credible_


----------



## Knobby22 (22 September 2017)

been Hi Cynic.

Its up to you to show flaws in the chart, not me. in truth the figures before 1970 aren't accurate enough for me. You can check the information on the sun strength in many ways but essentially it has been flat and slightly dropping off lately. Interestingly you can see the sunspot cycle in the chart.

Dr Soon is pretty active. He brought out a paper earlier this year saying the arctic has been melting for centuries so the present melt is just a continuation of the existing pattern. That solves that problem. Now when I show the arctic melting you can say Dr Willie Soon says it was always going to happen.


----------



## cynic (22 September 2017)

explod said:


> "by any means"rubbish.  The 97% of science agreement is pretty conclusive when earnestly sifted.
> 
> Climate and its change is a difficult and unpredictive pathway.   Initially the prime focus was on heat and a lack of water.   However the displacement of moisture from the warming poles has created increased rainstorms and the cooling out from the poles.  This has created a sense that all may be ok.
> 
> ...




It appears that you yourself have plunged your head deeply into the 97% consensus sandpit!

So it is little wonder that you have failed to notice the level of mathematical illiteracy, one would require in order to mistakenly conclude that the actual 35ish% can somehow equate to 97%.

The question of size, and whether or not a consensus even exists, isn't really the true problem! It sBy all means plunge your head firmly into that sandpit

The real problem is that consensus opinions have nothing, whatsoever, to do with the true practice of the physical sciences!

A far more important consideration, when assessing the merits of any unproven theory, is the question of falsifiability! (i.e. what would need to happen in order for the theory to be disproven in one, some, or all respects?)


----------



## cynic (22 September 2017)

basilio said:


> God your dim Cynic.. Really and truly.  Of all the pieces of cold hard facts you want to argue with you choose the clearest refutation of Willie Soons disproven hypothesis that global warming is driven by the Sun.
> 
> For your information this is the providence of that graph
> _Figure 1: Annual global temperature change (thin light red) with 11 year moving average of temperature (thick dark red). Temperature from NASA GISS. Annual Total Solar Irradiance (thin light blue) with 11 year moving average of TSI (thick dark blue). TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007. TSI from 1979 to 2015 from the World Radiation Center (see their PMOD index page for data updates). Plots of the most recent solar irradiance can be found at the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics LISIRD site.
> ...



Oh dear!
Carbon Cardinal bas. You've done it again!

In your (somewhat lengthy) sermon, you have somehow neglected to mention "the pause" and how it's existence undermines the integrity of this "clearest refutation" of Dr. Soon's research findings.

But then, that was to be expected really!

After all you've never shown any respect for any "cold hard facts" challenging your climate religion, so there's no reason for me to expect that to change any time soon.


----------



## cynic (22 September 2017)

Knobby22 said:


> been Hi Cynic.
> 
> Its up to you to show flaws in the chart, not me. in truth the figures before 1970 aren't accurate enough for me. You can check the information on the sun strength in many ways but essentially it has been flat and slightly dropping off lately. Interestingly you can see the sunspot cycle in the chart.
> 
> Dr Soon is pretty active. He brought out a paper earlier this year saying the arctic has been melting for centuries so the present melt is just a continuation of the existing pattern. That solves that problem. Now when I show the arctic melting you can say Dr Willie Soon says it was always going to happen.



What Arctic?!

Years back, one of the acclaimed climate scientists assured us that it would be all gone by September 2016! And it has to be true because a "qualified climate scientist" said so!!!

You do remember that don't you!


----------



## wayneL (22 September 2017)

basilio said:


> "Last word Wayne"  Always has to* insist *on repeating his deluded mantras. That's dedication to a cause...



Were you intentionally being ironic, because that just gave me the best belly laugh I've had in weeks. 

I never knew you had a penchant for comedy.


----------



## cynic (22 September 2017)

Knobby22 said:


> ...Its up to you to show flaws in the chart, not me...



Given that you were the one boldly accusing Dr. Soon of being 







			
				Knobby22 said:
			
		

> ...a corrupt lying weasel...



I believe the burden of proof remains squarely upon your shoulders!


----------



## basilio (22 September 2017)

"In your (somewhat lengthy) sermon, you have somehow neglected to mention "the pause" and how it's existence undermines the integrity of this "clearest refutation" of Dr. Soon's research findings." Cynic

Pause ?  What xxxxing pause Cynic? Have you noticed that 2014/2015/ 2016 were the warmest years on record?  That we have seen the steepest successive increases in average world temperatures ever recorded ? Is that you idea of a pause?  Have a look again again at the graph Knobby posted. Where is your "pause "

As for debunking Willie Soon. The graphs comparing changes in solar irridance and  increases in world temperature over the last 35 years demonstrate the fact that there is another factor in increasing global temperatures.

Given your incapable/unwilling to read what many scientists have have explained as the flaws in Willies paper there is no point in doing more than pointing you (and others) in the right direction.


----------



## cynic (22 September 2017)

basilio said:


> "In your (somewhat lengthy) sermon, you have somehow neglected to mention "the pause" and how it's existence undermines the integrity of this "clearest refutation" of Dr. Soon's research findings." Cynic
> 
> Pause ?  What xxxxing pause Cynic? Have you noticed that 2014/2015/ 2016 were the warmest years on record?  That we have seen the steepest successive increases in average world temperatures ever recorded ? Is that you idea of a pause?  Have a look again again at the graph Knobby posted. Where is your "pause "
> ...




Oh ye of climate faith:


----------



## basilio (23 September 2017)

And Senator Cruz is your go to man for information on climate change ?????

Couldn't you even find a pretend scientist as a reference point ?


----------



## cynic (23 September 2017)

basilio said:


> And Senator Cruz is your go to man for information on climate change ?????
> 
> Couldn't you even find a pretend scientist as a reference point ?



I normally prefer to leave that job (i.e. sourcing of pretend and pseudo scientists) in the hands of experts such as yourself.

Unlike the Sierra club president, senator Cruz was, at the very least, showing a willingness to respect objective satellite data!

You will note that the Sierra club president, did not dispute the existence of "the pause", nor did he deny the accuracy of the satellite data.

So in light of that, how is it that you can honestly claim to be oblivious to the existence of "the pause"?

Or did I use the incorrect term? Perhaps I should have referred to it as "the hiatus".
https://judithcurry.com/2015/11/06/hiatus-controversy-show-me-the-data/


----------



## Knobby22 (25 September 2017)

cynic said:


> What Arctic?!
> 
> Years back, one of the acclaimed climate scientists assured us that it would be all gone by September 2016! And it has to be true because a "qualified climate scientist" said so!!!
> 
> You do remember that don't you!



One of (who was it by the way?) ....what about the official estimates? Anyway you have an out now. You have faith in a guy says it's always going to happen based on um, you tell me. A doctorate (even in aeronautical engineering) always looks good to fool the gullible.


----------



## cynic (25 September 2017)

Knobby22 said:


> One of (who was it by the way?) ....what about the official estimates? Anyway you have an out now.



You must have an incredibly short memory!
You have already been involved in at least two discussions,on the climate hysteria thread, about the prediction made in that particular news) article!
Do I need to, yet again, bump posts from those discussions?



> You have faith in a guy says it's always going to happen based on um, you tell me. A doctorate (even in aeronautical engineering) always looks good to fool the gullible.



Says the one with faith in a political news blog website titled:"crooksandliars"!

When examining these information sources at their face value, which could be more reasonably deemed suitable for investigating into the integrity of scientific facts about matters such us solar irradiation?

The political news blog website? Or the man armed with a phd in aeronautical engineering alongside his decades of experience in scientific research?


----------



## Knobby22 (25 September 2017)

cynic said:


> You must have an incredibly short memory!
> You have already been involved in at least two discussions,on the climate hysteria thread, about the prediction made in that particular news) article!
> Do I need to, yet again, bump posts from those discussions?
> 
> ...




 You've ignored everything I have written. I've already said that site was a joke but it was funny to see your prophet in it. 

let's just agree to differ. You think he is a genius and what he says should be trusted without any evidence, just on faith alone, I think he is a hopelessly corrupt half assed scientist.  

That is probably because I am a naturally cynical guy while you are credulous. That's Ok, we are all different.


----------



## cynic (25 September 2017)

Knobby22 said:


> You've ignored everything I have written. I've already said that site was a joke but it was funny to see your prophet in it.
> 
> let's just agree to differ. You think he is a genius and what he says should be trusted without any evidence, just on faith alone, I think he is a hopelessly corrupt half assed scientist.
> 
> That is probably because I am a naturally cynical guy while you are credulous. That's Ok, we are all different.



Firstly, as I was previously unaware of your delusion of being possessed of clairvoyant capabilities (does the Carbon BigFootprint bestow this quality on all acolytes, or just on an apostilic few?). Anyway, after seeing your failed attempts at discerning my unexpressed thoughts, the best advice I can offer is that you do not surrender your day job!

Secondly, unlike the Carbon Crusaders, I do not recall ever placing any expectation, on anyone, to place trust in any claims, without evidential backing!

Experiencing oneself as skeptical about the claims of qualified scientists when presented with findings that challenge one's chosen religion, is a trait more likely to be found in a person bigotted by zealotry, than it would in a "naturally cynical guy".

If there is objective evidence(outside of somewhat dubious, political motivated, web blogs), supportive of your claims to the corruption of any scientist, or their findings, why not post those instead of wasting my time and patience with your so called joke!

After witnessing your repeated failure to substantiate your reiterated claims against the integrity of Dr. Soon, I am left with little other option than concluding that YOU are the one expecting to "be trusted without any evidence"!


----------



## luutzu (25 September 2017)

cynic said:


> Oh ye of climate faith:





Ah Teddy Cruzie... turning the heat on that hippie know-it-all, not up for debate egghead. 

You're really scraping the bottom cynic. Whatever happen to some smart looking actor in a white coat?


----------



## cynic (25 September 2017)

luutzu said:


> Ah Teddy Cruzie... turning the heat on that hippie know-it-all, not up for debate egghead.
> 
> You're really scraping the bottom cynic. Whatever happen to some smart looking actor in a white coat?



Did you fail to recognise, how those questions, asked by senator Cruz, highlight a very important issue?

Did you not find the reluctance of the Sierra club to proffer answers to direct questions (pertinent to the scientific validity of claims to CAGW), disconcerting?

Do you claim that the questions posed by the senator were somehow inappropriate? If yes, how so?

And if not, would you be willing to answer those questions in defense of your catastrophic climate religion?


----------



## luutzu (26 September 2017)

cynic said:


> Did you fail to recognise, how those questions, asked by senator Cruz, highlight a very important issue?
> 
> Did you not find the reluctance of the Sierra club to proffer answers to direct questions (pertinent to the scientific validity of claims to CAGW), disconcerting?
> 
> ...




Cruz was playing with words. Fact that you don't recognise how he's playing it, and what an azz he is, speaks a fair bit about your biases.

So Teddy read the statement that says: The science behind climate change and its affect on minorities should not be up for debate.

Then he practically spent the entirety of that clip focusing on the Sierra Club's shutting down debate; what is "preponderance"; is it a habit for the SC to shut down debate and freedom like that; is it scientific. blah blah...

in other words, Cruz is saying that he's a man of science; himself being a lawyer; himself loves freedom and no such thing "not up for debate" because debating is awesome, it brought science and stuff to light.

What a douche.


The main focus on the SC's statement should have been: Its impact on minorities, you know, poor people.

How does CC affect the poor/minorities?

When your crop dies, you and your poor peasant family will starve;

When a cyclone or a heatwave or a hurricane or a flood passes outside your shed or your caravan, you will either lose everything, or die, or get sick, go homeless and die.

Only an idiot like Cruz would not recognise the impact of CC on the poor. Just imagine it; or watch the news. The poor cannot afford to run away into a hotel for a few days; The poor and the working class with one property that is their home will lose all their savings and life's work when "natural" disaster hit.

Pretty obvious. Or do we need to put it on a bell curve, debate its normal distribution and see what percentage of probability of random blah blah.


Now you got to ask yourself... why is a douche like Cruz get to become a US Senator. Through honesty, brilliant scientific and scholarly mind; through caring for the peasants... or he's one of those who will sell out his own mother if the price is right.

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

Repeating an old point here but being a Climate Sceptic bring with it a crap load of responsibilities.

To borrow Teddy's legal analogy, you sceptics better prove beyond reasonable doubt that CC is a hoax; that human does not cause it and cannot do anything to avoid it. That onus is on you and you better use science and such voodoos to prove your case.

Why?

Because if you're wrong and the world's climate goes to heck as just about every Climate Scientists says it will... millions and millions of people will die; species goes extinct.

i.e. you can't say "oppps".

The climate alarmists, however, can be wrong and the world will still be a better place.


----------



## cynic (26 September 2017)

luutzu said:


> Cruz was playing with words. Fact that you don't recognise how he's playing it, and what an azz he is, speaks a fair bit about your biases.



From what I observed, the majority of his questions were quite succinct, requiring only binary responses!
The questions themselves, when considered in totality, made the purpose, for which they were designed, quite apparent to the attentive listener.

In relation to your comments about bias, I make no claims to an absence of bias, on my own part, or on the part of any other individual.

Can you honestly claim to be free from bias in your discussions of this topic?



> So Teddy read the statement that says: The science behind climate change and its affect on minorities should not be up for debate.
> 
> Then he practically spent the entirety of that clip focusing on the Sierra Club's shutting down debate; what is "preponderance"; is it a habit for the SC to shut down debate and freedom like that; is it scientific. blah blah...



By what right, can the Sierra Club, expect such exemptions when campaigning for reforms that will impact society?


> in other words, Cruz is saying that he's a man of science; himself being a lawyer; himself loves freedom and no such thing "not up for debate" because debating is awesome, it brought science and stuff to light.
> 
> What a douche.



What?!!
Were we watching the same video clip?!!
Senator Cruz freely confessed to having a legal background!



> The main focus on the SC's statement should have been: Its impact on minorities, you know, poor people.
> 
> How does CC affect the poor/minorities?
> 
> ...



One's faith in sensationalised media headlines, renowned for failing when subjected to, even the most cursory, of fact checks, does not automatically entitle one to decry one's opponents as idiots!

I believe that it would be far safer, to be an idiotic media sceptic, than it would, to be an idiotic media devotee!



> Pretty obvious. Or do we need to put it on a bell curve, debate its normal distribution and see what percentage of probability of random blah blah.
> 
> 
> Now you got to ask yourself... why is a douche like Cruz get to become a US Senator. Through honesty, brilliant scientific and scholarly mind; through caring for the peasants... or he's one of those who will sell out his own mother if the price is right.
> ...



I do not claim to know the motivation/s behind Senator Cruz's aspiration to his current position. I am neither, here to condemn, nor defend him.

What I do claim to know, is that the questions raised by Senator Cruz, presented a credible challenge to CAGW subscription, by the Sierra Club. Furthermore, several of their dismissive non-responses, exposed the Sierra Club's lack of regard for objective scientific data.



> Repeating an old point here but being a Climate Sceptic bring with it a crap load of responsibilities.
> 
> To borrow Teddy's legal analogy, you sceptics better prove beyond reasonable doubt that CC is a hoax; that human does not cause it and cannot do anything to avoid it. That onus is on you and you better use science and such voodoos to prove your case.
> 
> ...



The sad thing about all this is, you seem to actually believe the things you are saying!

To highlight a very serious defect in your logic, I draw your attention to the fact that there exist, many, many, religions, complete with obligatory practices, for which the purportedly beneficial claims are, as yet, unproven.

Would it be reasonable and/or practicable, to be expected to accept obligations, imposed by respective religious authorities, for their associated practices, based solely upon one's inability to disprove the altruistic assertions?

I trust that the above parallel, highlights that the burden of proof truly belongs to those seeking to impose change on the general populace!!
(Otherwise, I see no reason, for you not to be, queuing for the confessional in the near future!!)


----------



## wayneL (26 September 2017)

luutzu said:


> Cruz was playing with words. Fact that you don't recognise how he's playing it, and what an azz he is, speaks a fair bit about your biases.
> 
> So Teddy read the statement that says: The science behind climate change and its affect on minorities should not be up for debate.
> 
> ...



Tsk tsk, I can see at least three erroneous premises here.... 

But your logic is for you, to justify your emotions.


----------



## wayneL (26 September 2017)

cynic said:


> Oh ye of climate faith:




Wow, how embarrassing, evasive, quoting debunked surveys, disregarding objective data.

and luutzu is defending that guy?

Good God man, I posit your ability to objectively analyse debate is seriously flawed.


----------



## PZ99 (26 September 2017)

You guys should look to our polling for your answers... "ditto" dominates the front row!


----------



## explod (26 September 2017)

Reality PZ99, 

One of the best posts in awhile.


----------



## luutzu (26 September 2017)

cynic said:


> From what I observed, the majority of his questions were quite succinct, requiring only binary responses!
> The questions themselves, when considered in totality, made the purpose, for which they were designed, quite apparent to the attentive listener.
> 
> In relation to your comments about bias, I make no claims to an absence of bias, on my own part, or on the part of any other individual.
> ...




Imposing change, you say. Why that's not freedom and liberty. The world and its people should be free to... die, or suffocate.

Pffft. 

It's call innovation man. You know, get dirty coal then you wash it just before you burn it up for energy.

That or you figured out a better solar panel where the energy is delivered by God to it everyday.

Mate, have you tried living without power, or running water, all while your house just had its roof blown off and everything around you are like a hurricane just gone through it? 

That's how the Peurto Ricans might live for another 6 months. 

But yes, let's debate the preponderance of the evidence. We can't be too careful and listen to experts, or use our own reason and judgement. 

Imagine the horror of setting up new industries, hiring new people, creating tools and engineering to tap into a clean and renewable source of energy. Why would anyone want to risk that when mining and pumping an energy source literally hundreds or thousands of miles away, delivering it to a power plant, having it burnt and pollute all over the roads, the seas, the air... Try saying that out loud. See if those who buy into this scepticism aren't paid to do so.

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

As to Cruz.... he was lawyering it man. And does so in as stupid a way as any idiot could. That's not because he's an idiot, but because to get to the truth of the assertion he's going to get answers he don't want to hear.


----------



## basilio (26 September 2017)

*Taking down serial Climate Denial liars.


 The Mail's censure shows which media outlets are biased on climate change 
Right-wing media outlets like Breitbart, Fox News, and Rush Limbaugh echoed the Mail’s “significantly misleading” and now censured climate story

Shares
272
 
 Comments
 486 
Dana Nuccitelli
*
Monday 25 September 2017 11.00 BST   Last modified on Monday 25 September 2017 22.53 BST

Back in February, the conservative UK tabloid Mail on Sunday ran an error-riddled piece by David Rose attacking Noaa climate scientists, who had published data and a paper showing that there was never a global warming pause. The attack was based on an interview with former Noaa scientist John Bates, who subsequently admitted about his comments:

_I knew people would misuse this. But you can’t control other people._

*The UK press regulator, the Independent Press Standards Organization (Ipso) has now upheld a complaint submitted by Bob Ward of the London School of Economics. Ipso ruled that the Mail piece “failed to take care over the accuracy of the article” and “had then failed to correct these significantly misleading statements,” and the Mail was required to publish the Ipso adjudication.*

The Mail’s manufactured controversy
Essentially, Bates had expressed displeasure in the way the data from a Noaa paper had been archived at the organization. Rose and the Mail blew this minor complaint into the sensationalist claim that “world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data.” It would be hard to find a better example of fake news than this one. The piece included a grossly misleading chart that Nasa Goddard Institute for Space Studies director Gavin Schmidt described as a “hilarious screw up”:

In fact, the Noaa data and paper in question had already been independently verified by other researchers, and are in close agreement with global temperature data from other scientific groups:

And of course the paper itself had undergone rigorous peer-review prior to its publication in one of the world’s most highly-regarded scientific journals, Science. All signs pointed to the Noaa data and paper being based on sound science that had been reproduced and verified. But that didn’t fit the preferred denialist narrative of Rose and the Mail on Sunday, so they weaved a conspiracy theory that then reverberated through the right-wing media echo chamber.
*
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...ch-media-outlets-are-biased-on-climate-change
*


----------



## wayneL (26 September 2017)

luutzu said:


> Imposing change, you say. Why that's not freedom and liberty. The world and its people should be free to... die, or suffocate.
> 
> Pffft.
> 
> ...



OMG.

Nobody except the Grauniad and the worst alarmists  are conflating the recent hurricanes with GW.

Cultural Marxism at it again, you being the useful idiot.


----------



## cynic (26 September 2017)

luutzu said:


> Imposing change, you say. Why that's not freedom and liberty. The world and its people should be free to... die, or suffocate.
> 
> Pffft.
> 
> ...



Your post failed to answer a number of questions put to you!

So I guess this means I'll be seeing you in the queue at the confessional in the near future!

After all, confession is quite harmless, and so very good for the immortal soul!
So in the absence of disproof of the existence of the fallen angel, Lucifer, one wouldn't want to risk having one's immortal soul burn in a lake of sulphur for the rest of eternity! Confession is believed to be a very safe and convenient way of insuring against that eventuality!


----------



## luutzu (27 September 2017)

cynic said:


> Your post failed to answer a number of questions put to you!
> 
> So I guess this means I'll be seeing you in the queue at the confessional in the near future!
> 
> ...




You seriously need proof of CC? 

Since Climate Scientists and their research aren't enough; since 30% of Cat5 hurricane since record bagan some 100 years ago happens in the past 15 years aren't saying anything, to you...

Here's proof: Go into a crowded elevator and take a fart. See if human have any impact on their environment; Or imagine [don't do alright], imagine a running engine in a locked up garage. See if the air in there is as fresh as that fart in the lift.

Most life on earth are quite delicate. Try not watering your garden for a week, or a couple of days in summer. Try working outdoor, and having to be outdoor to earn that salt, when the temperature hit the 30s. Do I need to go on?

The impact of climate change is not imaginary to those affected by it. And if enough of those poor are affected, it become not just a humanitarian issue but also a national security issue. 

Now back to what Cruz was saying, and you seem to agree with him...

It's like if a police officer tells that honuorable gentleman from Texas: Kids with guns will not end well. It's just beyond debate that we have to enforce laws mandating gun-owners to lock up their guns, keep it away from kids.

Woooahh, woah! Hang on a minute officer. Are you saying that debate is over? There is no need to debate? Is that kind of a police state common practice in your department? It certainly ain't so in our great democracy.

And officer, what do you mean kids and guns are bad, based on the preponderance of blah blah. 

What if the kids was clever and never point the gun to their own head. What if the kid don't touch the trigger; what if we remove the bullets; what if they find the bullets, put that barrel to their eyes to see but it goes off and only damage the ceiling?

Pretty freaking stupid to go along that line of argument, but there it was... and it's so, so smart and clever. So scientific and sensible.


----------



## cynic (27 September 2017)

luutzu said:


> You seriously need proof of CC?
> 
> Since Climate Scientists and their research aren't enough; since 30% of Cat5 hurricane since record bagan some 100 years ago happens in the past 15 years aren't saying anything, to you...
> 
> ...



What relevance does elevator flatulence have to the discussion at hand?

Do you seriously agree with the Sierra Club's contemptuous disregard for the satellite data that showed a recent period (approximately 19 years) of slight cooling?

On the topic of cat 5 hurricanes, 94 (not 100 !) years of historical data has been captured,and dependent upon how one slices the time intervals, those recent 30% could be considered to have occurred inside a larger than 15 year interval!

Despite the limitations imposed by a scant 94 years of historical data, over which the cat 5's are sporadically distributed, (and irrespective of whether the recently chosen interval is viewed as 15 or more years) it is still possible to produce a probability estimate of the likelihood that these were in line with what could be expected from natural causation. The estimate's reliability and meaningfulness, is however, limited by the sparsity of the available data.

So did you calculate an estimate of the probability of whether or not this was naturally caused?

If so:
(i) what was the percentage likelihood of that period occuring inside of 94 years history?     and knowing this,
(ii) how can you seriously continue to claim that those cat 5's are evidence of CAGW?


----------



## Tisme (27 September 2017)

See we are going to try for a new Sept temp record anywhere today. 

Conspiracy by the weather Gods to take the heat out of the AFL granny! Heresy right there.


----------



## luutzu (27 September 2017)

cynic said:


> What relevance does elevator flatulence have to the discussion at hand?
> 
> Do you seriously agree with the Sierra Club's contemptuous disregard for the satellite data that showed a recent period (approximately 19 years) of slight cooling?
> 
> ...




It's 94 years since the first recorded one with the then new hurricane measure/definition scale. It's not 94 years of Cat5 man.

And yes, if 33% of something occurred in the last 14/94=15% of the entire span under discussion, it's not "normal". 

You know how there are idiots who know a lot about maths but doesn't know how to think? I'm pretty sure you know a lot about that, just you might not realise it.

Yea mate, I'd take statistics from Cruz the same way I'd take a coolaid in Jonestown. 


It's a fart, not flatulent. I guess you were sent to the right school... too bad Critical Thinking weren't part of the syllables. 

If something concentrated is foul and bad for you, diluting it far and wide does not mean it no longer exist. It's still there, just spread out. 

Then, if more and more of the substance are added day after day, years after years... the dilution become less diluted. When the build up is faster than the natural breakdown, nothing will happen because it's all the Sun's fault.


----------



## cynic (27 September 2017)

luutzu said:


> It's 94 years since the first recorded one with the then new hurricane measure/definition scale. It's not 94 years of Cat5 man.



Are you suggesting that no Atlantic cat 5's occurred prior to 1924?


> And yes, if 33% of something occurred in the last 14/94=15% of the entire span under discussion, it's not "normal".



How did you arrive at such a conclusion without knowing the statistical probability?

From the available data, calculate the standard deviation, and then show me where that time interval is situated in respect to the bell curve!

Whilst doing so, also give due consideration to the bell curve positioning for the prior intervals,  and then explain to me again, how it is that you justify defining this event, which is of limited statistical significance, as somehow not "normal"?

It is quite evident that you have neither comprehension, nor understanding of statistics, and analysis methods for same.

Now, based upon statistical analysis of the historical data, what is the probability (i.e. likelihood) that those cat 5's were of natural causation?


> You know how there are idiots who know a lot about maths but doesn't know how to think? I'm pretty sure you know a lot about that, just you might not realise it.



Do you "know how there are idiots", whom, whilst idiotically ignorant of their own idiocy, somehow arrive at the idiotic conclusion that there idiocy resides elsewhere?
A mirror, would prove a sound investment, for you, at this juncture!


> Yea mate, I'd take statistics from Cruz the same way I'd take a coolaid in Jonestown.



After reading your posts, I'll be more than happy to shout your first drink!


> It's a fart, not flatulent. I guess you were sent to the right school... too bad Critical Thinking weren't part of the syllables.



It's syllabus not syllables!
Go back to FTSEing school and try and actually learn something this time!


> If something concentrated is foul and bad for you, diluting it far and wide does not mean it no longer exist. It's still there, just spread out.



Your posts throughout these climate threads being a case in point.


> Then, if more and more of the substance are added day after day, years after years... the dilution become less diluted. When the build up is faster than the natural breakdown, nothing will happen because it's all the Sun's fault.



Sounds like diluted thinking to me!

Wouldn't it be better for everyone present, if, instead of diluting their intellect with deluded apocalyptic fantasies, people actually concentrated?


----------



## luutzu (27 September 2017)

cynic said:


> Are you suggesting that no Atlantic cat 5's occurred prior to 1924?
> 
> How did you arrive at such a conclusion without knowing the statistical probability?
> 
> ...



 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saffir%E2%80%93Simpson_scale

Turns out the scale was established in 1971. Retrospectively define historical Cat5 hurricanes where there are available data.

I guess there were no instrument to measure wind speed before 1924, that and a sucked finger in the wind just won't do.

So yea, there were Cat5 hurricane/typhoon/cyclones in and around the tropics. 

We're interested in the frequency of those here. Not weather or not [], not whether or not there's been any before.

Sooo... some 35 Cat5 over a 100 year span; 11 of those in the past 14 or so years.

The average is 1 every 3 years; the past 14 shows almost 1 every year. 

I guess we need a few more lifetimes to see if there's a trend. I mean, what's a few million lives lost here and there... we need the stats, dam it! 

I guess those Climate Scientists studying them ice core drills dating back millions of years... meehhh. What does that tell them about carbon, ice age, polar ice cap. 





cynic said:


> It's syllabus not syllables!
> Go back to FTSEing school and try and actually learn something this time!



  That was killing two birds with one stone. 

If should frame that joke. It's one of my best work. 




cynic said:


> Your posts throughout these climate threads being a case in point.
> 
> Sounds like diluted thinking to me!
> 
> Wouldn't it be better for everyone present, if, instead of diluting their intellect with deluded apocalyptic fantasies, people actually concentrated?




Puerto Rico. The new Katrina where poor and coloured American citizens get to have the freedom to die slowly as "a great job" is being put together to help them out of the storm.

But of course debt have to be repaid first. That and whether or not they sang the proper respect to the national anthem. Priorities my friend. Preponderance of the fact a to weather the poor die first or not.


----------



## cynic (27 September 2017)

luutzu said:


> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saffir%E2%80%93Simpson_scale
> 
> Turns out the scale was established in 1971. Retrospectively define historical Cat5 hurricanes where there are available data.
> 
> ...



Earlier in the 94 year record span, there was a 14 year interval with none whatsoever!
What do you make of that?

How far from the mean (in standard deviations)?

In statistical terms, what does that suggest the probability to be?

How does this compare to the probability of 11 (i.e. instead of none)?

In light of the answers to the aforementioned questions, tell me again how you determined that these cat 5's were not "normal"?


----------



## luutzu (27 September 2017)

cynic said:


> Earlier in the 94 year record span, there was a 14 year interval with none whatsoever!
> What do you make of that?
> 
> How far from the mean (in standard deviations)?
> ...




ermmm... the Cold War cooled the planet during those years? It's been hotter past decade or two because Al Qaeda and ISIS prayed to their Allah since the 90s? 

See why there are things people should leave to 97% of the experts to tell them?

and dude, when the average is 1 per 3 years over the century... or let's remove the past 14 years and its Cat5... that's (94-14 years)/(34-11) = 80/23 = 3.4years per Cat5.

So there were decades without any Cat5. On average about 1 every 3.4 years for the first 80 years... now it's about 1 per year.

Yah, that's normal man. Look, 3.4 = 1.


----------



## cynic (27 September 2017)

luutzu said:


> ermmm... the Cold War cooled the planet during those years? It's been hotter past decade or two because Al Qaeda and ISIS prayed to their Allah since the 90s?
> 
> See why there are things people should leave to 97% of the experts to tell them?
> 
> ...



Says the man whom clearly doesn't understand the criticial importance of considering standard deviations, whilst observing variances from the mean.

I shall try to put it in simpler terms for you:
How many 14 year periods can you see in that data where exactly 4 cat 5's occurred?
How many 28 year periods where 8 occurred?
How many 42 year periods where 12 occurred?

Considering the answers to those questions, can you now understand why your approach to this analysis is faulty?

Can you also understand how consideration of the standard deviation can aid in estimating the probability of such variatiances from mean?

So instead of persisting with your repetitious demonstrations of your statistical misconceptions, why not answer the FTSEing questions I have repeatedly posted!

Then we'll be able to have a meaningful discussion about why, the limited data available, actually suggests that these events are more than likely to have been naturally caused.


----------



## luutzu (27 September 2017)

cynic said:


> Says the man whom clearly doesn't understand the criticial importance of considering standard deviations, whilst observing variances from the mean.
> 
> I shall try to put it in simpler terms for you:
> How many 14 year periods can you see in that data where exactly 4 cat 5's occurred?
> ...




I never claimed to be a Mathsurgeon man; not a Statismethician either [neither?]

Of course these events are naturally caused. We humans just mined and pump and transport and refine the dam thing; burnt it up; convert it to energy; the waste and natural transformation floats into the atmosphere; block the sun's heat from escaping (naturally); the warmer ocean and air naturally, like magic, lifts the waters in the tropics and wooosh, mother nature washes and floods cities and buildings where people die naturally from being drowned or smash by flying debris or lack of food or drinking water or going broke because they've loss their job or not getting paid during the storm, the clean up; and not being paid enough that have their home repaired, their few possessions replaced.

That's how Mufasa tells it to Simba. 

But that's the Disney version.

The Brothers Grimm version would go something like rich capitalist psychos with their fat fingers on the lever of power pulls a few strings, pay a few "scientist" and "journalist" to say it's all natural, the scientists are all wrong because they can't prove anything definitively.


----------



## cynic (27 September 2017)

luutzu said:


> I never claimed to be a Mathsurgeon man; not a Statismethician either [neither?]
> 
> Of course these events are naturally caused. We humans just mined and pump and transport and refine the dam thing; burnt it up; convert it to energy; the waste and natural transformation floats into the atmosphere; block the sun's heat from escaping (naturally); the warmer ocean and air naturally, like magic, lifts the waters in the tropics and wooosh, mother nature washes and floods cities and buildings where people die naturally from being drowned or smash by flying debris or lack of food or drinking water or going broke because they've loss their job or not getting paid during the storm, the clean up; and not being paid enough that have their home repaired, their few possessions replaced.
> 
> ...



More like a Hans Christian Andersen fairytale:


I suggest that all climate alarmists, and cronies of same, pay close attention to that fairytale's educational content, as it has a high level of relevance to the climate issue! (I am not joking!)


----------



## Knobby22 (28 September 2017)

The state record for the hottest day in September has been broken for the second time in a week in parts of western New South Wales.

In the upper west, Delta has hit 41.3 degrees Celsius and in Bourke it reached 40.7C.





Other towns which are also expected to reach 41C include Tibooburra, Bourke, Lightning Ridge, Walgett and Mungindi.

The latest record was only just set on Saturday when the town of Wilcannia reached 40.5C during an unseasonal heatwave.

Prior to that, the last record was set on September 28, 2004 with the temperature hit 39.6C at Wanaaring.


----------



## Knobby22 (28 September 2017)

From the ABC 

Something very interesting will happen when Bali's Mount Agung finally erupts: the Earth will become a little bit *cooler*.

Yep. It's not exactly what you'd expect after a volcanic eruption, which will see molten lava spewed into the air.

Mount Agung last erupted in 1963 after lying dormant for decades.

When it erupted, experts said global atmospheric temperatures dropped by *0.1-0.4 degrees Celsius*.

According to Professor Arculus, that sulphuric acid haze can persist in the stratosphere for *a few years*, but eventually the droplets will drop back to Earth.


----------



## basilio (5 October 2017)

Did you know ?
*260 heat and low rainfall records were broken in Australia during the our 2017 winter ? *
Has Global Warming ceased ?  Meanwhile Scott Morrison continues his special relationship with a lump of coal..

* If you can't stand the heat, get out of the climate change debate *







*Judith Ireland *


There is no shortage of things to talk – and worry – about this week.

A glance at trending social media topics suggests "Las Vegas", "Tom Petty", potential moves for AFL players Tom Rockliff and Jake Lever and "National Boyfriend Day" are on the brain. But oddly missing from the list of talking points is the terrifying research released on Wednesday.





More than 260 heat and low rainfall records were broken during the winter months, the Climate Council says. Photo: Andrew Taylor
According to a study led by the Australian National University, Sydney and Melbourne should prepare for 50-degree summer days in the coming decades. Researcher Sophie Lewis said these 50-degree scorchers could occur even under the Paris Agreement's global warming limit of 2 degrees.

The study, published in _Geophysical Research Letters_, adds "such unprecedented temperatures would present onerous challenges to human and natural systems".





Treasurer Scott Morrison with a lump of coal during question time. Photo: Alex Ellinghausen
With existing records for both cities currently hovering around 46 degrees, this is not simply a question of running out of space for your towel at Bondi. Or your air conditioner struggling to keep up.

Do our cities (and bodies) have the capacity to withstand this kind of heat? As Lewis told _The Guardian_, how would public transport systems cope during a 50-degree heatwave? How would hospitals handle the numbers of people overcome by heatstroke? How would we continue to power our cities?

"Urgent action on climate change is critical," the ANU academic said.

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...he-climate-change-debate-20171003-gytukv.html


----------



## explod (24 February 2018)

*So it looks like the weather is going to get very ugly, but who cares ?

What Will We Leave Our Children?*
23 hrs · 
Simply terrifying. #ClimateEmergency





Arctic temperatures soar 25 degrees above normal in the dead of winter
Shipping can navigate easily through the Arctic Ocean as the ice melts in abnormally high temperatures for February.
SMH.COM.AU


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 February 2018)

explod said:


> *So it looks like the weather is going to get very ugly, but who cares ?*



Nothing to worry about there.

It'll be easier to sail the coal carrying ships through without that pesky ice in the way. 

Easier for the oil industry to drill up there now too.

Now pass along the lump (of coal) and get back to worrying about things which really matter. Things link who's having sex with who, what's on the national flag and which days should be public holidays. No need to waste time with silly things like melting ice caps and rising sea levels.


----------



## wayneL (25 February 2018)

Better scuttle your SUVs and decomission the aircon chaps.


----------



## basilio (26 February 2018)

The mechanics of how global warming is disrupting weather conditions around the world are concerning. Following on from Explods post there is an excellent analysis of the changes in pressure systems that are happening as the Artic rapidly warms at 4 times the rate of the rest of the world.

* 'Really extreme' global weather event leaves scientists aghast *






*Peter Hannam*

Climate scientists are used to seeing the range of weather extremes stretched by global warming but few episodes appear as remarkable as this week's unusual heat over the Arctic.

Zack Labe, a researcher at the University of California at Irvine, said average daily temperatures above the northern latitude of 80 degrees have broken away from any previous recordings in the past 60 years.

"To have zero degrees at the North Pole in February - it's just wrong," said Amelie Meyer, a researcher of ice-ocean interactions with the Norwegian Polar Institute. "It's quite worrying."

The so-called Polar Vortex - a zone of persistient low-pressure that typically keeps high-latitude cold air separate from regions further south - has been weakening for decades.

In this instance, "a massive jet of warm air" is penetrating north, sending a cold burst southwards, said Dr Meyer, who has relocated to Hobart to research on the southern hemisphere, and is hosted by Australia's Integrated Marine Observing System.

"The anomalies are really extreme," Andrew King, a lecturer in climate science at the University of Melbourne, said. "It's a very interesting event."

Warm, moist air is penetrating much further north than it would normally at a time when the North Pole is in complete darkness.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/env...leaves-scientists-aghast-20180225-p4z1q4.html


----------



## basilio (26 February 2018)

_"While climate change itself is only likely to have exacerbated regional weather variability, the long-term shrinkage of sea ice has a reinforcing effect on global warming in a region already warming faster than anywhere else on the planet, Dr King said.
_
*Ice reflects sunlight back to space. When it melts, the sea ice exposes more of the dark ocean beneath, which then absorbs that solar radiation, adding to the warming.*
_
Sea ice coverage is currently at or close to record low levels at both the Arctic and Antarctic regions.

The impact of the relatively warm air in the Arctic could play out for months to come. Multi-year ice is likely to be thinner and more cracked, leading to a faster melt when spring arrives, Dr Meyer said.
_
*While researchers had pegged 2050 as a possible year when the Arctic will become ice-free, this winter and the previous one - also unusually warm - had thrown those estimates out.

"It's going much faster than we thought," said Dr Meyer, who will begin work later this year at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes."

Reference as above*


----------



## basilio (26 February 2018)

And the reality of human caused  climate change can be understood and accepted by anyone - including  seemingly dyed- in-the-wool sckeptics.  Come on down!

Look at the video below.

*Video*
* The evolution of a one-time climate 'skeptic' *

*For two-plus decades the veritable bane of the existence of many climate scientists, a one-time Cato Institute official now endorses the science and advocates for action.*

Climate change policy analyst* Jerry Taylor spent more than 25 years earning his well-deserved reputation as the skunk at the picnic of American climate scientists.

Taylor – the focus of this month’s “This is Not Cool” video – cut his teeth as an energy and environment savant with the very conservative American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), where he worked from 1988 to 1991. Then, from 1991 to 2014, he was with the free-market Cato Institute in Washington, D.C., where he eventually became a vice president. Through many of those years, Taylor was a frequent spokesperson for those scientists who regularly challenged whether climate change is real, human-caused, or, in either event, worth worrying about or doing anything to address.

......
*Jerry Taylor:  Version #1 vs. Version #2*
But that was Jerry Taylor, Version #1. That is the Jerry Taylor who from 2000 through 2009 was spending lots of his free time designing wargames for computer gaming enthusiasts.

Then came Jerry Taylor, Version #2. That’s the Jerry Taylor who – after doing what he describes as his own “due diligence” – has come to fully accept and endorse the peer-reviewed scientific evidence on human-caused climate change that Earth’s atmosphere has warmed over the past half-century-plus primarily as a result of human emissions of greenhouse gases, specifically including carbon dioxide.

Jerry Taylor Version #2 goes further. Having studied under-graduate political science at the University of Iowa, but without graduating, Version #2 now also accepts the need to address and manage climate change impacts … and risks and accepts also the economic rationale, indeed necessity, for doing so now, rather than putting it off until … forever … as he long had argued for.

Having left behind him the Cato Institute and other climate “contrarian” partisans, interests, and individual climate science “deniers,” Taylor may yet come to be seen, in this second iteration, as being among the most quotable and effective communicators and proponents for climate action. And as one who to at least some extent has the ear of many on Capitol Hill disinclined to be seen as accepting the science or policy gravitas of ongoing atmospheric warming.

Jerry Taylor Version #1 and Jerry Taylor Version #2. It’s kind of a BC/AD situation, and an evolution that was triggered, interestingly enough, by a face-to-face challenge from well-known and feisty climate action activist and author Joe Romm, of the Center for American Progress and Climate Progress website.

Strange bedfellows that, many would surely say.

It’s Jerry Taylor Version #2 who is the focus of this month’s  Yale Climate Connections’ video by independent videographer Peter Sinclair, of Midland, Mi.


_*Taylor says he doesn’t care to be described as a “libertarian” though that may be how many see him. “I’m a very heterodox libertarian at best,” he says – which means he’s unconventional or unorthodox among those seen as straight-out libertarian. “If I must be labeled ideologically, perhaps ‘moderate’ would be most correct,” Taylor now says. It’s an adjective few in the climate community might have thought appropriate not so long ago.

_

*Filed under: Bud Ward, Peter Sinclair, This is not cool*














*Subscribe to Yale Climate Connections*
Get the latest updates with our newsletter and feeds.

*More Stories
*


----------



## Smurf1976 (26 February 2018)

wayneL said:


> Better scuttle your SUVs and decomission the aircon chaps.



I’ll need the SUV to drive through the flood waters and I’ll need the aircon to keep cool due to the rising temperature.

Only trouble is that the SUV might get a bit dirty so I’ll need to use a ridiculous amount of water to clean it afterwards.


----------



## Sean K (27 February 2018)

Just finished a couple of good skeptic and Lukewarmer books on AGW. Good reads.

Lukewarmer by Patrick Michaels
Red Hot Lies by Chris Horner


----------



## Knobby22 (27 February 2018)

Scientists get it wrong again. See the skeptics are right!
The arctic was meant to be ice free by 2050 and once again scientists models are wrong.
Now they say it may be 2030 due to the amazing temperatures present at the arctic and Greenland which are getting temperatures above freezing levels even though it is winter and there is no sun.


----------



## explod (27 February 2018)

*"'Really extreme' global weather event leaves scientists aghast*
Send via Email



Climate scientists are used to seeing the range of weather extremes stretched by global warming but few episodes appear as remarkable as this week's unusual heat over the Arctic.

Zack Labe, a researcher at the University of California at Irvine, said average daily temperaturesabove the northern latitude of 80 degrees have broken away from any previous recordings in the past 60 years.



"To have zero degrees at the North Pole in February - it's just wrong," said Amelie Meyer, a researcher of ice-ocean interactions with the Norwegian Polar Institute. "It's quite worrying."

The so-called Polar Vortex - a zone of persistient low-pressure that typically keeps high-latitude cold air separate from regions further south - has been weakening for decades.

In this instance, "a massive jet of warm air" is penetrating north, sending a cold burst southwards, said Dr Meyer, who has relocated to Hobart to research on the southern hemisphere, and is hosted by Australia's Integrated Marine Observing System.


"The anomalies are really extreme," Andrew King, a lecturer in climate science at the University of Melbourne, said. "It's a very interesting event."

Warm, moist air is penetrating much further north than it would normally at a time when the North Pole is in complete darkness.

Cape Morris Jessup, the world's most northerly land-based weather station, in Greenland, touched 6 degrees late on Saturday, about 35 degrees above normal for this time of year.

Robert Rohede, a Zurich-based scientist with Berkeley Earth, posted on Twitter that Cape Morris Jessup had already recorded 61 hours above freezing so far in 2018.

The previous record of such relative was just 16 hours recorded to the end of April in 2011.

"Parts of Greenland are quite a bit warmer than most of Europe," Dr King said.

The cold snap will sink temperatures moderately below freezing in London each day until Friday. However, cities such as Berlin will dive to as low as minus 12 degrees and Moscow to minus 24.

With a weak jetstream, surface winds are taking an unusual course - bringing snow from the east and prompting some commentators to dub the event the "Beast from the East".

"For Britain and Ireland, most weather systems would typically blow in from the west, but [on Tuesday] we will see a cold front cross Britain from the east," Dr King said.
Along with the unusual warmth over the Arctic, scientists are monitoring the retreat of sea ice in the Bering Sea.

The ice coverage in the region is now at levels previously seen only in May or June, Mr Labe posted on Twitter, citing data from the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre.

While climate change itself is only likely to have exacerbated regional weather variability, the long-term shrinkage of sea ice has a reinforcing effect on global warming in a region already warming faster than anywhere else on the planet, Dr King said.

Ice reflects sunlight back to space. When it melts, the sea ice exposes more of the dark ocean beneath, which then absorbs that solar radiation, adding to the warming.

Sea ice coverage is currently at or close to record low levels at both the Arctic and Antarctic regions.

The impact of the relatively warm air in the Arctic could play out for months to come. Multi-year ice is likely to be thinner and more cracked, leading to a faster melt when spring arrives, Dr Meyer said.

While researchers had pegged 2050 as a possible year when the Arctic will become ice-free, this winter and the previous one - also unusually warm - had thrown those estimates out.

"It's going much faster than we thought," said Dr Meyer, who will begin work later this year at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate Extremes."

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/...leaves-scientists-aghast-20180226-p4z1q4.html

And as I post the ABC show massive col;d across Europe.  All gets back to the displacement effect we discussed on the Hysteria thread some years back.


----------



## explod (28 February 2018)

A further update this morning even more alarming in my view:-

"
*An alarming heatwave in the Arctic is causing blizzards in Europe and forcing scientists to reconsider even their most pessimistic forecasts of climate change. *The record warmth this month could yet prove to be a freak occurrence, but experts warn it is unprecedented and are concerned that global warming is eroding the polar vortex, the powerful winds that once insulated the frozen north. Seasoned observers have described what is happening as “crazy”, “weird” and “simply shocking”, with an influx of warm air pushing temperatures in Siberia up by as much as 35C above historical averages this month. At the world’s most northerly land weather station – Cape Morris Jesup at the northern tip of Greenland – recent temperatures have been, at times, warmer than London and Zurich, which are thousands of miles to the south.

“This is an anomaly among anomalies ... It is a suggestion that there are further surprises in store as we continue to poke the angry beast that is our climate,” said Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Centre at Pennsylvania State University. “The Arctic has always been regarded as a bellwether because of the vicious circle that amplify human-caused warming in that particular region. And it is sending out a clear warning.”

https://mail.google.com/mail/ca/u/0/#inbox/161d8ebc99835544


----------



## explod (28 February 2018)

*"Winter in the Arctic and it's 2 degrees above freezing*
By Linda Mottram on PM


Share
Facebook
Twitter
Mail


 Download (2.11 MB)
MP3 available 2.11 MB

It's winter in the Arctic and it's two degrees Celsius above zero - 30 degrees warmer than it should be.

Sea ice is cracking in unexpected places, with a feedback loop of warming air, melting ice, and warming water allowing warm weather events to more readily sweep into the region.

Dr Alek Petty is a research scientists at the NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, said that while it's not the first time it's occurred, this latest incident of arctic warming has scientists very concerned.

Duration: 4min 36sec
Broadcast: Tue 27 Feb 2018, 6:30pm"

http://www.abc.net.au/radio/program...ctic-and-its-2-degrees-above-freezing/9490548

Interesting that the news is particularly focussed on the cold and snow in the northern climes but silence reigns on the seriously unusual warmth in the arctic.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 March 2018)

explod said:


> Interesting that the news is particularly focussed on the cold and snow in the northern climes but silence reigns on the seriously unusual warmth in the arctic.




This is a really disturbing development, but of course it will be brushed off as"normal" by the deniers.


----------



## explod (2 March 2018)

Continued silence by the media (it seems world wide too) in relation to this speaks volumes.

https://www.ecowatch.com/arctic-climate-change-2539897203.html

*Scientists Stunned by Off-the-Charts Arctic Temperatures, Record-Low Sea Ice*

Over the past few days, many climate scientists took to social media to express dismay over the Arctic'sunseasonably warm temperatures and its record-low sea ice. At the height of winter, the region is clocking temperatures normally seen in May.

"The northernmost permanent weather station in the world, just 440 miles from the North Pole, has warmed to 43°F today—in the middle of months-long darkness during what is normally the coldest time of the year," meteorologist Eric Holthaus tweeted Saturday.

"This is simply shocking. I don't have the words," he added.

"Just how hot is the Arctic now?" Peter Gleick, the president-emeritus of the Pacific Institute and a member of the U.S. National Academy of Science tweeted, "Hotter than ever measured in the winter. Human-caused climate change is beginning to radically transform our planet."

Climate scientist Zack Labe, a researcher at the University of California at Irvine, shared several striking graphs of the Arctic's record-breaking heat.


Robert Rohde, a lead scientist at Berkeley Earth, commented that parts of the Arctic are seeing temperatures more than 60°F above normal for February. In translation? "The North Pole is warmer than much of Europe right now."

"This is associated with a warm air intrusion from the Atlantic and displacement of cold air onto Asia following large scale disturbances to the polar jet stream," he explained.

"Temperatures are still breaking records at North Greenland. +6°C (43°F) for a daily high is not just a record for February, it beats the highest temperature observed at this site in March or April as well. This is roughly 35°C (63°F) above normal for this time of year," he tweeted Sunday.


In real-world terms, the warmth has caused crucial sea ice to melt. This frightening footage, first flagged by Mashable, shows how the Bering Sea's disappearing ice is exposing Alaskan coastal communities to terrifying storm surges. Normally, the sea is solidly frozen.


----------



## explod (3 March 2018)

*"Climate Change — The Earth Is Screaming For Help. Is Anyone Listening?*

Facebook
Twitter
Google+
Pinterest
February 28th, 2018 by Steve Hanley

At _CleanTechnica_, our main mission is to bring our readers news about how to decarbonize the economy so average global temperatures don’t rise high enough to roast us and every other living thing on the planet out of existence. We try to inform rather than preach. We may cajole on a regular basis, but we try not to shout. Yet if there was ever a time to shout, it is now. Climate change denial is simply endangering the lives of all 7 billion+ souls who inhabit this planet, regardless of age or ethnicity.


The news isn’t hard to understand. It’s not mired in techno-speak that non-professionals cannot comprehend. It’s simply that temperatures in the Arctic right now are way out of whack. According to a report in _The Atlantic,_ at Cape Morris Jesup, the northernmost tip of Greenland, the mercury is reading 43 degrees Fahrenheit — 50 degrees higher than the norm for this time of year. It’s easy to read and then say, “Ho hum. Guess I’ll go check my Facebook page or Twitter feed.” So let me emphasize that bit of information.

*At Cape Morris Jesup, the northernmost tip of Greenland, the mercury is reading 43 degrees Fahrenheit — 50 degrees higher than the norm for this time of year.*
This isn’t some fake news. It’s not a bunch of scientists banding together to get more research grant money. It involves a simple ministerial task, something even Scott Pruitt could do when he isn’t flying around the world at taxpayer expense — put on a hat and coat, go outside and read a thermometer. No talking points needed. No alternative facts to be bandied about on Fox & Friends.

Assuming the thermometer at Cape Morris Jesup is accurate and hasn’t been hacked by Russian bots, the Earth is sending us a clear, unequivocal message — it is scary hot up here and that is going to affect your comfortable, middle class world sooner than you think. If you thought your grandkids were going to live in the same world you are accustomed to, it’s time for a checkup from the neck up.

200 miles southeast at Cape Nord, the temperature last weekend was a toasty 36.5º F. Something is going on up there in Greenland and it’s not getting any ink in the mainstream media.

“This is an anomaly among anomalies. It is far enough outside the historical range that it is worrying. It is a suggestion that there are further surprises in store as we continue to poke the angry beast that is our climate,” Michael Mann, director of the Earth System Science Center at Pennsylvania State University tells _The Guardian._ “The Arctic has always been regarded as a bellwether because of the vicious circle that amplify human-caused warming in that particular region. And it is sending out a clear warning.”

A graph prepared by _The Guardian_ makes the seriousness of the emergency abundantly clear.





“Spikes in temperature are part of the normal weather patterns. What has been unusual about this event is that it has persisted for so long and that it has been so warm,” said Ruth Mottram of the Danish Meteorological Institute. “Going back to the late 1950s at least, we have never seen such high temperatures in the high Arctic.”

Indeed, spikes are not that unusual. In 2011 and 2017, record high temperatures were recorded in the Arctic but they lasted only a few hours. The current temperature spike has lasted for 10 days. “In 50 years of Arctic reconstructions, the current warming event is both the most intense and one of the longest-lived warming events ever observed during winter,” said Robert Rohde, lead scientist of Berkeley Earth, a non-profit organization dedicated to climate science.

The danger now is what is known as a feedback loop. Higher temperatures in the Arctic lead to less sea ice, which leads to more of the sun’s warmth being absorbed by the oceans which leads to more melting. That melting leads to more methane emissions as parts of Greenland and the Arctic that have been under the ice shelf for millenia become exposed to the warm atmosphere above which leads to more heat trapping gases in the atmosphere and more melting.

Unlike the yapping, yowling pack of climate deniers who decry any and all warnings, the climate scientists take a measured, considered approach to the news. Is the sky really falling? Is it time to run and tell the king? “This is too short term an excursion to say whether or not it changes the overall projections for Arctic warming,” says Michael Mann. “But it suggests that we may be underestimating the tendency for short term extreme warming events in the Arctic. And those initial warming events can trigger even greater warming because of the ‘feedback loops’ associated with the melting of ice and the potential release of methane.”

Mann, fellow scientists like James Hansen, and activists like Bill McKibben have been persistent in sounding the alarm but their voices have been largely drowned out by the din created by ExxonMobil and Koch Industries as they fight to save their income streams even if they have to kill every living thing on Earth to do so.

But there is hope. Anthropologists tell us the legend of the Great Flood is known to every culture on earth, even in remote tribes that have had little to no contact with so-called civilization. So perhaps the Earth will simply rest for a few million years beneath a protective cocoon of ocean water until it is time for mankind to regenerate itself once again.

Mistakes are the best teachers, they say. But will those future humans benefit from the errors of their forebears or plunge right back in to the same cycle of greed and destruction that destroyed the Earth in the first place? It’s possible the next generation of humanoids will be smarter and profit from those prior mistakes, but the history of humanity offers few reasons for optimism."

And what more can one say, its all look away. Plod

https://cleantechnica.com/2018/02/28/climate-change-earth-screaming-help-anyone-listening/


----------



## explod (3 March 2018)

*"Harrison Ford: "We've Got People in Charge of Important **** Who Don't Believe in Science"*
Shots fired.


SCIENCE AF STAFF
5 NOV 2017
Speaking at an event for the environmental group Conservation International on Thursday, Harrison Ford blasted the Trump administration's handling of climate science.

"We face an unprecedented moment in this country. Today's greatest threat is not climate change, not pollution, not flood or fire," said Ford, according to the _Hollywood Reporter_.

"It's that we've got people in charge of important **** who don't believe in science." 

Ford has been involved with the non-profit for nearly 26 years, and he currently serves as the executive vice-chair. On Thursday, during the organization's 30 year anniversary, Ford was honored with the Founders' award for his dedication and service.

Not one to miss an opportunity, Ford used his acceptance speech to criticize those politicians who allow "political or economic self-interest denigrate or belittle sound scientific understanding of the causes and effects of human pressure on the environment." 

"I'm here tonight for one reason: I care deeply for the natural world. It's not about me, it's not about me at all, it's about this other world we're going to leave behind," Ford said.

"If we don't stop the destruction of nature, nothing else will matter. Jobs won't matter, our economies won't matter, our freedoms and ethics won't matter, our children's education and potential won't matter, peace, prosperity. If we end the ability of a healthy natural world to sustain humanity nothing else will matter, simply said."

Ford was first introduced to Conservation International in 1999. The leading environmental group, which provides a fund for scientists in 30 countries to identify and overcome biodiversity threats, impressed him so much that he joined the organization's board. After years of dedication and hard work, Ford now sits on the board's executive committee.

"Other than my family, doing this work has been the most important thing of my life," he said.

"Nature doesn't need people, people need nature"

Top thinker.   Plod


----------



## luutzu (3 March 2018)

explod said:


> *"Harrison Ford: "We've Got People in Charge of Important **** Who Don't Believe in Science"*
> Shots fired.
> 
> 
> ...




Somebody, ahem, will say that Ford is a hypocrite because he fly his own planes, most likely travel in private jets... and he kill and shaped and bend timber into furniture for fun!


----------



## basilio (4 March 2018)

Check out how Climate Change is affecting  California through drought, fire, floods and mudslide.
And it hasn't  officially started has it ?

* Southern Californians know: climate change is real, it is deadly and it is here *
Nora Gallagher
An earthly paradise is ravaged by inferno and flood, the earth itself rising to proclaim a horrifying and deadly new normal

Sat 3 Mar 2018 07.00 EST


*Shares*
825
 
* Comments*
 427 



A child plays in surf reddened by the reflection of heavy smoke in Montecito, just south of Santa Barbara. Photograph: David McNew/Getty Images
When people ask me where I live and I say, “Santa Barbara,” I wait for the inevitable reply, “Paradise,” and the quizzical look that says, how does one live there, rather than vacation. It’s as if I had replied, Disneyland.

People who visit from colder climates have been complaining lately. Last year, when it finally rained after six years of drought, and we were practically on our knees with gratitude, a woman from New England remarked, “I didn’t come here for the rain.” I almost said, “Well, then, why don’t you go back home?” Another pestered a friend: when was her club in Montecito going to open? My friend replied, “I think it’s under eight feet of mud.” She wanted to add, “And they’re still looking for the bodies.”

It’s always been a struggle here to have a normal life, to hold on to reality.

In December, we got a mega-dose of reality when the biggest fire in California’s history burned more than 270,000 acres. Seven cities were evacuated.

When the air was labeled “hazardous” for three days running, we made plans to leave. On Sunday morning, my phone pinged a mandatory evacuation for Montecito. I called a friend who lives there. “Packing,” she said. The fire was less than a mile away. I drove through the brown air and falling ash to a gas station and when I got there, my credit card wouldn’t work; the power was out. I stood in the zombie snow as others lined up behind me. Finally, we drove north to a hotel on the coast, where, with evacuated friends, we hiked and walked together along the shore.

After we’d been there a few days, I woke up at 3am and thought of a movie I’d watched years ago. Ava Gardener and Gregory Peck waiting for the fallout from a nuclear war in the northern hemisphere to float on the wind to them in Australia. They were going to die, and everyone and everything they cared about was already dead or was going to be. I remembered a lot of drinking and dancing, fruitless searching by submarine along the coasts of the United States for survivors and Fred Astaire fixing up his sports car so he could rev it up in his garage and commit suicide.

I thought, we are On the Beach.

Like them, we were hardly refugees. We hadn’t walked out of our houses not knowing where we were going or who would take us in. But still, hanging over our hikes, was dread.

And what was coming toward us? Immediately, it was the fire. The fire at that point was burning so hot it was basically gas. Because of the long drought, the lack of rain this season, and Santa Ana winds in December.

But we were waiting for something else, too.

And then, the firefighters, all 8,549 of them, stopped the fire and we went home for Christmas.

In early January, a tropical storm from the south hit the newly burned mountains above Montecito between two and three in the morning, and dropped a half-inch of rain in five minutes. A force of water and ash and soil no longer secured by plants picked up boulders on its way down the mountain and swept into the town. My friends in Montecito were just too tired to evacuate ahead of this storm. A firefighter told them the day before. “If you hear a sound like a freight train, get up on the second story or the roof.” They woke up at three under a red sky from houses exploding over severed gas lines and they heard it: “A terrible grinding roar.” It buried houses and cars and people. It buried the freeway and the train tracks. All the way to the ocean. A body of a man was found on the beach. Not far from him was the body of a bear.

Broken houses line mud-caked streets, and two people are still missing including a two-year-old. We are no longer a pretty backdrop, and our hearts aren’t pretty, either.

And we know now what the dread was we felt in December. Call it climate change or climate collapse, that was the Big Dread behind the smaller ones. Climate believers, climate deniers, deep in our hearts we think it will happen somewhere else. Or, in some other time, in 2025 or 2040 or next year. But we are here to tell you, in this postcard from the former paradise, that it won’t happen next year, or somewhere else. It will happen right where you live and it could happen today. No one will be spared.

So, if you are driving around and flying on airplanes and ordering things to be shipped by truck and making money off oil stock the way so many of us are – like there’s no tomorrow? We are here to tell you there is a tomorrow and we are living in it.

If you visit, talk to us as if our dose of mega-reality is not some singular string of bad luck or an inconvenience to you. Help tether us to the reality we are – all of us – living in now and that we in southern California don’t want to forget in the face of returning to “normal”. Give us the one gift that will help us: please, let’s not go back to business as usual.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...lifornia-climate-change-fires-flood-landslide


----------



## Logique (8 March 2018)

Australian BoM computer specialists on the 8th floor in Melbourne were in late Feb rounded up into a separate room, and eventually sent home.

Two of their number are suspected of using BoM computers to mine cryptocurrency.

This certainly beats using the BoM computers to analyse why temperature readings have seemed to increase artificially, after the introduction of the new temperature probe instrumentation.







> 8 March 2018 - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-...aff-implicated-in-cryptocurrency-ring/9524208
> Police question Bureau of Meteorology staff over cryptocurrency operation
> By Dylan Welch - ABC
> 
> ...


----------



## basilio (8 March 2018)

Logique said:


> This certainly beats using the BoM computers to analyse why temperature readings have seemed to increase artificially, after the introduction of the new temperature probe instrumentation.




Really Logique ?  Is that the truth or just another BS lie spread by global warming deniers ?

Funny isn't it.  The last dozen plus posts highlights the overwhelming physical reality of CC around the world. Storms,  fires, floods, unbelievable warmth at the North Pole, changes in  climate caused by these warmings *in fact so much factual evidence of CC it seems inconceivable that this reality is denied.*

And yet  ??


----------



## Knobby22 (8 March 2018)

The Arctic Ocean is becoming more accessible for shipping. Most of the increase in commercial shipping traffic has been during summer, primarily through the Northern Sea Route along the coast of Siberia. However, this February a commercial tanker, the _Eduard Toll_, made the first crossing of the Northern Sea Route in winter. Improvements in ship-building and the development of ice-strengthened hull technology is a major factor in enabling winter access. Previous ice-strengthened ships could only navigate safely through 0.5 meter thick ice, compared to the 1.8 meter thick ice that the _Eduard Toll_ cruised through. A fleet of six ships with similar technology is being constructed by a South Korean shipbuilder.

At present the sea ice extent is at a new low for winter, with delays of ice formation occurring due to heightened temperatures (or maybe inaccurate temperature measuring equipment? (joke))


----------



## Wysiwyg (8 March 2018)

There is absolutely no reason why the planet should remain suitable for human existence. It wasn't for millions ny billions of years. Such desperation.


----------



## basilio (11 March 2018)

The financial realities of global warming are coming home to roost. The storms, fires, flooding and extreme weather that are now the "new normal" are threatening the insurance industries survival. 

*What happens if the Insurers go broke or refuse to insure a swath of events ?  *The story may be more than a year old but 2017/18 has seen an even bigger jump in extreme weather events so the unwinding of the insurers  financial position can only be getting worse.

* Climate change threatens ability of insurers to manage risk *
Extreme weather is driving up uninsured losses and insurers must use investments to fund global warming resilience, says study

Damian Carrington

 @dpcarrington 
Wed 7 Dec 2016 17.00 AEDT   Last modified on Thu 15 Feb 2018 04.08 AEDT





Severe flooding in Carlisle, north-west England, December 2015. Photograph: Andrew Yates/Reuters
The ability of the global insurance industry to manage society’s risks is being threatened by climate change, according to a new report.

The report finds that more frequent extreme weather events are driving up uninsured losses and making some assets uninsurable.

The analysis, by a coalition of the world’s biggest insurers, concluded that the “protection gap” – the difference between the costs of natural disasters and the amount insured – has quadrupled to $100bn (£79bn) a year since the 1980s.

Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England, warns in the new report that: “Over time, the adverse effects of climate change could threaten economic resilience and financial stability [and] insurers are currently at the forefront.”

The ClimateWise coalition of 29 insurers, including Allianz, Aon, Aviva, Lloyd’s, Prudential, Swiss Re and Zurich, conclude that the industry must use more of its $30tn of investments to help fund increased resilience of society to floods, storms and heatwaves.

The Bank of England warned in 2015 that insurance companies could suffer a “huge hit” if their investments in fossil fuel companies were rendered worthless by action on climate change and some insurers have already shed investments in coal.

The ClimateWise report, published on Wednesday, also says the industry must also use its risk management expertise to convince policymakers in both the public and private sector of the urgent need for climate action.

The industry’s traditional response to rising insurance risks – raising premiums or withdrawing cover – would not help deal with the rising risks of global warming, it said.

“The insurance industry’s role as society’s risk manager is under threat,” said Maurice Tulloch, chairman of global general insurance at Aviva and chair of ClimateWise. “Our sector will struggle to reduce this protection gap if our response is limited to avoiding, rather than managing, society’s exposure to climate risk.”

The report said that, since the 1950s, the frequency of weather-related catastrophes has increased sixfold. As climate-related risks occur more often and more predictably, previously insurable assets are becoming uninsurable, or those already underinsured are further compromised, it said.

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...change-threatens-ability-insurers-manage-risk


----------



## basilio (12 March 2018)

*Where are we going ?*
* Climate change is a disaster foretold, just like the first world war *





Jeff Sparrow
The warnings about an unfolding climate catastrophe are getting more desperate, yet the march to destruction continues

 @Jeff_Sparrow 
Mon 12 Mar 2018 12.02 AEDT   Last modified on Mon 12 Mar 2018 12.04 AEDT


*Shares*
13
 
* Comments*
 25 



‘The extraordinary – almost absurd – contrast between what we should be doing and what’s actually taking place fosters low-level climate denialism’ Photograph: Guido Dingemans/Alamy Stock Photo
“The lamps are going out all over Europe, we shall not see them lit again in our life-time.”

The mournful remark supposedly made by foreign secretary Sir Edward Grey at dusk on 3 August 1914 referred to Britain’s imminent entry into the first world war. But the sentiment captures something of our own moment, in the midst of an intensifying campaign against nature.





*  Arctic has warmest winter on record: 'It's just crazy, crazy stuff'  *
Read more
According to the World Wildlife Fund’s 2016 Living Planet Report, over the last four decades the international animal population was reduced by nearly 60%. More than a billion fewer birds inhabit North America today compared to 40 years ago. In Britain, certain iconic species (grey partridges, tree sparrows, etc) have fallen by 90%. In Germany, flying insects have declined by 76% over the past 27 years. Almost half of Borneo’s orangutans died or were removed between 1999 and 2015. Elephant numbers have dropped by 62% in a decade, with on average one adult killed by poachers every 15 minutes.

We inherited a planet of beauty and wonders – and we’re saying goodbye to all that.

The cultural historian Paul Fussell once identified the catastrophe of the first world war with the distinctive sensibility of modernity, noting how 20th century history had “domesticate[d] the fantastic and normalize[d] the unspeakable.”

Consider, then, the work of climate change.

In February, for instance, scientists recorded temperatures 35 degrees above the historical average in Siberia, a phenomenon that apparently corresponded with the unprecedented cold snap across Europe.

As concentrated CO2 intensifies extreme events, a new and diabolical weather will, we’re told, become the norm for a generation already accustomising itself to such everyday atrocities as about eight million tons of plastics are washed into the ocean each year.

*"It may seem impossible to imagine, that a technologically advanced society could choose, in essence, to destroy itself, but that is what we’re now in the process of doing.”*

This passage from the New Yorker’s Elizabeth Kolbert concluded a piece on global warming, which was published way back in 2005. Over the 13 years since, the warnings from scientists have grown both more specific and desperate – and yet the march to destruction has only redoubled its pace.
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...saster-foretold-just-like-the-first-world-war


----------



## SirRumpole (12 March 2018)

basilio said:


> "It may seem impossible to imagine, that a technologically advanced society could choose, in essence, to destroy itself, but that is what we’re now in the process of doing.”




The deafening silence from a man who was once passionate about climate change and would not lead a party who was not as committed as he was to doing something about it is a measure of how much a prisoner he is of the neo cons and alt right, and it's about time he either got back his principles or got out of the way.


----------



## explod (7 June 2019)

The party is on folks:-

*A "Surreal" Atmospheric CO2 Record Just Blew All Previous Measures Out of The Water *

CARLY CASSELLA
6 JUN 2019
Humanity has been climbing a treacherous path, and now, looking down from such great heights, our footprints are clear to see.

In the middle of May, carbon dioxide (CO2) levels in our planet's atmosphere climbed over and above 415 parts per million (ppm) for the first time since the dawn of our species. That was a single-day high. Now, for the second time in two months, scientists at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography and NOAA have bad news."

https://www.sciencealert.com/co2-le...il&utm_term=0_fe5632fb09-de12e29d16-365530661


----------



## basilio (7 June 2019)

The rate of increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is terrifying.  If I had to think of comparisons I would imagine a submarine captain watching the depth gauge rise as the sub sunk and wondering when the seals would pop.
Or a pilot watching his altimeter unwind when his engines cut out.
Check out the history of atmospheric CO2


----------



## wayneL (7 June 2019)

basilio said:


> The rate of increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is terrifying.  If I had to think of comparisons I would imagine a submarine captain watching the depth gauge rise as the sub sunk and wondering when the seals would pop.
> Or a pilot watching his altimeter unwind when his engines cut out.
> Check out the history of atmospheric CO2




So wadaya gonna do with your Landcruiser, bas?


----------



## basilio (7 June 2019)

Isn't it interesting how some people can completely ignore a terrifying reality like an exponential CO2 increase leading inevitably to an unlivable planet and choose to  trash talk the person bringing the situation into view?


----------



## wayneL (7 June 2019)

basilio said:


> Isn't it interesting how some people can completely ignore a terrifying reality like an exponential CO2 increase leading inevitably to an unlivable planet and choose to  trash talk the person bringing the situation into view?



Pointing out your cognitive dissonance is trash talking? 

Let's do a thought experiment.  Let's suppose every person on the planet had *your carbon footprint; where do you think we would be,  in your paradigm? 

If,  to save the planet,  we should all duplicate your future modified carbon footprint, what would our lifestyle look like? If we should all follow your paradigm, what would your lifestyle look like?


----------



## explod (7 June 2019)

wayneL said:


> Pointing out your cognitive dissonance is trash talking?
> 
> Let's do a thought experiment.  Let's suppose every person on the planet had *your carbon footprint; where do you think we would be,  in your paradigm?
> 
> If,  to save the planet,  we should all duplicate your future modified carbon footprint, what would our lifestyle look like? If we should all follow your paradigm, what would your lifestyle look like?



In a very short time our life will be crap anyway and with such evident cynicism soon gone.


----------



## rederob (7 June 2019)

wayneL said:


> Let's do a thought experiment.  Let's suppose every person on the planet had *your carbon footprint; where do you think we would be,  in your paradigm?



That's a "thoughtless" experiment.
If it were me, then the planet would be fine.
I can find another 5 billion people who would have no significant impact...but who is counting ?
Great comedy tho, so thanks wayneL.


----------



## basilio (7 June 2019)

wayneL said:


> Pointing out your cognitive dissonance is trash talking?
> 
> Let's do a thought experiment.  Let's suppose every person on the planet had *your carbon footprint; where do you think we would be,  in your paradigm?
> 
> If,  to save the planet,  we should all duplicate your future modified carbon footprint, what would our lifestyle look like? If we should all follow your paradigm, what would your lifestyle look like?




What typical Wayne crap...

1) You have absolutely no idea what my footprint is.  Nor what I do in my life. So why do you choose to make up whatever crap you see fit  ? 
2) The significant issue is at least recognising we have a serious problem. To date you have steadfastly refused to think there is one. And when the the situation is brought up you chose to shoot the messenger - again.
Explod and Redrob said everything else there is to say on this topic.

Why not just STFU on this topic  Wayne ? Unless of course  you have something constructive or thoughtful to add.   In this case Less is definitely More.


----------



## wayneL (7 June 2019)

explod said:


> In a very short time our life will be crap anyway and with such evident cynicism soon gone.



You are a very foolish man, Mr Plod.

We have known each other on this platform for several years now and if you haven't figured out that my actual footprint upon this earth is very much smaller than typical (even accounting for my profession) possibly even rivaling yours... possibly even surpassing yours in its diminutiveness, then that can only be accounted for by the stupidity and blindness of your absurd ideology.

As for bas,  I will put up $10,000 right here and now that my footprint pales into insignificance comared to it's (or whatever its preferred personal pronoun happens to be today).

I have the data on my side bruh.


----------



## wayneL (7 June 2019)

STFU? 

Not in a million years,  Komrade.


----------



## basilio (7 June 2019)

* Thousands could perish annually in US if global heating not curbed, study finds *

Every year nearly 5,800 people are expected to die in New York, 2,500 in Los Angeles and more than 2,300 in Miami

Thousands of heat-related deaths in major US cities could be avoided if rising global temperatures are curbed, new research has found.

On current global heating trends, thousands of people are set to perish due to the heat every year across 15 major US cities, in an analysis by a team of British and American researchers.

Once the average worldwide temperature rises to 3C (5.4F) above the pre-industrial period nearly 5,800 people are expected to die each year in New York City during particularly hot years, more than 2,500 are forecast to die annually in Los Angeles and more than 2,300 lives will be lost annually in Miami.

These deaths are predicted for any year that was the warmest for 30 years.

This dire scenario would probably be avoided if the world was able to keep to its commitments made in the Paris climate agreement, where governments pledged to limit the global temperature rise to 2C, with an aspiration to keep the increase to 1.5C.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...could-perish-annually-us-global-heating-study


----------



## basilio (7 June 2019)

* It is absurd to question whether we can afford to keep our planet liveable *
Fiona Harvey
The chancellor has warned against cutting UK emissions to net zero. But failing to act will have dire consequences

The chancellor, Philip Hammond, has written to the prime minister to warn against adopting the strict targets on greenhouse gas emissions recommended by the government’s advisers.

His intervention, first reported by the Financial Times (£), raises the important question of whether or not it makes economic sense to save the planet.

If the question sounds absurd, that’s because it is. If we fail to move to a low-carbon economy, the consequences will be dire. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the body of the world’s leading climate scientists convened by the UN, we must drastically reduce our emissions in the next decade to avoid a catastrophic situation in which droughts, floods, heatwaves and extreme weather across the globe devastate lives, destroy agriculture, lay waste to wildlife and force millions to flee.

Set against that, the costs – of £50bn a year in investment, according to the Committee on Climate Change (CCC), which set out the case last month for a target of net-zero emissions by 2050, or £70bn a year, according to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy – of maintaining our current lifestyles and orderly existences are trivial. The UK’s economy is worth roughly £2tn a year at present, so Hammond’s estimate of a £1tn cumulative cost by 2050 amounts to less than half of one year’s GDP in three decades.

Doug Parr, the chief scientist for Greenpeace UK, said: “The Treasury is putting their ideology before our wellbeing, and trying to shape the public debate for political ends. If you want to know whether a policy is good, include the benefits as well as the costs. In this case, the benefits include an economy fit for the 21st century, cleaner air, warmer homes, and maximising the chances of civilisation surviving. If reality doesn’t fit with the Treasury models, it’s the models that need to change.”

Yet the question – can we afford to keep our planet liveable? – has dogged debates on climate change for more than three decades. While scientists have issued ever stronger warnings about the likely impacts of climate change, nations have held back on taking action to reduce greenhouse gases, which have remained stubbornly high, though their growth rate has slowed.

The Stern review, conducted by the former World Bank economist Lord Stern for the Treasury in 2006, was supposed to settle this question once for all. Stern found, and his analysis has been widely backed up since, that the cost of dealing with climate change would be the equivalent of shaving 1-2% from GDP growth rates per year, compared with a cost of at least 5% of GDP per year from leaving global heating unchecked.

The CCC, in its recommendation of a net zero target, also estimated a cost of 1-2% of GDP by 2050, which is far outweighed by the costs of not acting. Nor would the UK be alone: the EU is considering a similar net zero target by 2050, while Norway, New Zealand and a few other countries have already done so.
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...hether-we-can-afford-keep-our-planet-liveable


----------



## basilio (7 June 2019)

*When Rising Seas Hit Home: Hard Choices Ahead for Hundreds of US Coastal Communities (2017)*





There comes a threshold of chronic flooding that makes normal routines impossible and forces communities to make difficult, often costly choices. 

If saltwater regularly soaked your basement or first floor, kept you from getting to work, or damaged your car, how often would it have to happen before you began looking for a new place to call home? 

This national analysis identifies when US coastal communities will face a level of disruptive flooding that affects people's homes, daily routines, and livelihoods. It identifies hundreds of communities that will face chronic inundation and possible retreat over the coming decades as sea levels rise.

The findings highlight what’s at stake in our fight to address sea level rise and global warming. They also provide affected communities a measure of how much time they have to prepare.

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmi...t-home-chronic-inundation-from-sea-level-rise


----------



## basilio (7 June 2019)

*Dangerous India heat wave to worsen as temperatures approach all-time highs in New Delhi this weekend*

With monsoon rains still several weeks away, intense heat will maintain a firm grip on northern India as well as neighboring Pakistan into the middle of June.

The heat began to build across central and northern India during mid- to late May and peaked last week with the hottest days of the year so far in many locations.

Thursday, May 30, was the hottest day of 2019 in New Delhi as the temperature soared to 46.8 C (116 F) at the capital city's Indira Gandhi International Airport. Temperatures remained dangerously high in New Delhi and the National Capital Region (NCR) in recent days with daily high temperatures of 42-44 C (108-112
https://www.accuweather.com/en/weat...time-highs-in-new-delhi-this-weekend/70008472


----------



## basilio (7 June 2019)

*Climate change cripples planet’s glaciers and ice caps*
Ice in the world’s Arctic and on mountains is thinning, which could pose a threat to people

Martin Sharp vividly recalls his first slush flow. He spent that June, in 2007, camping on the Devon Ice Cap. This gently curving dome of ice is 140 kilometers (87 miles) across and rises to a height of 1,900 meters (6,200 feet). It sits atop an island in the Canadian high Arctic.

The big melt: Earth’s ice sheets are under attack[/paste:font]
Sharp was riding a snowmobile when he heard a roar. It sounded like the rumble of a subway train. The entire snow slope in front of him was moving: A slow-motion river of waterlogged slush was slurping down the mountainside. A spate of hot, sunny days had melted so much snow that the slope could no longer support itself.

Slush flows didn’t used to happen here. The summers weren’t warm enough, notes this glaciologist at the University of Alberta in Canada. But by the time he saw this one in 2007, he had been hearing about them more and more. In one memorable case, a lake of melt water sitting on top an ice cap suddenly drained. This sent a flood of water, slush and ice rampaging 10 kilometers (6 miles) down a valley. It nearly wiped out a camp where scientists had been staying.

https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/climate-change-shrinking-glaciers-and-ice-caps


----------



## basilio (7 June 2019)

*Could climate change worsen global conflict?*
By stressing resources and prompting mass migrations, climate change could be a ‘threat multiplier

There is a region in the Middle East known as the Fertile Crescent. It includes parts of what are now Turkey, Iraq and Syria. In ancient times, it was known as a birthplace of farming. But the area is not so fertile anymore. Marshlands that covered much of the area have largely dried up. Between 2007 and 2010, the region saw very little rain. It suffered the worst drought seen since scientists began keeping records here.

Climate change didn't cause the drought, but it probably made it worse. Crops failed. People went hungry. Many people moved from rural areas to cities, crowding the urban areas.





From September 2007 to December 2009, groundwater levels went up (in blue) and then down (in red) over time, as people increasingly turned to wells for water during a drought that struck the Fertile Crescent.
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
A year later, civil war broke out in Syria. That war is still being waged today. Was climate change to blame for the conflict? Scientists do not all agree. But plenty of studies have suggested that such conflicts could become more likely in communities stressed by the weather extremes that are expected to emerge in a warming world.

Climate change is already affecting human communities in many ways. It's been crowding out some regions as sea-level rise shrinks the size of islands and wipes away some coastal towns. It’s bashed and destroyed towns and cities with severe weather or mega-wildfires. It’s started bringing disease and job-robbing heat to some regions. It's even changing what foods are available to eat.

Sherri Goodman is a security expert and board member with the Center for Climate and Security in Washington, D.C. “Climate change is a threat multiplier,” she says. “It aggravates existing tensions around the world,” she explains. “And makes existing threats worse."
https://www.sciencenewsforstudents.org/article/could-climate-change-worsen-global-conflict


----------



## basilio (7 June 2019)

*Top government officials warn of looming climate change threat*
*One expert said he'd "be hard pressed to say that it's not in the top two or three" global threats.*

Top government security experts   (USA) on Wednesday warned lawmakers about the growing threat climate change poses for national security, elevating conversations about the link between global warming and worldwide instability that have already begun to play out among 2020 presidential contenders.

“If you integrate over time, 20, 30, 40 years, I’d be hard pressed to say that it’s not in the top two or three [global threats],” said Rod Schoonover, a State Department intelligence official, responding to a question about the threat level posed by climate change.
Schoonover was one of three intelligence experts testifying before the House Intelligence Committee as part of a dedicated hearing on the national security implications of climate change. He was joined by Peter Kiemel, a counselor for the National Intelligence Council (NIC), and Jeffrey Ringhausen, a senior analyst with the Office of Naval Intelligence, who also sounded the alarm on the risks global warming poses for international stability.

Climate change “affects us from a functional issue perspective,” explained Kiemel, who spoke of current issues — including drought and famine that have worsened tensions in the Middle East and Central America — along with future concerns, like water wars and the thawing of the Arctic.
https://thinkprogress.org/national-...xperts-2020-warren-trump-happer-6df357162565/


----------



## explod (7 June 2019)

It has nothing to do with individual footprints Wayne, we need to get the message across that we are heading for disaster and push the authorities world wide to do something collectively about it.

Stop planes and cars, close the coal mines etc., and do it from now.  Some countries are doing it but we must all do it.


----------



## qldfrog (8 June 2019)

explod said:


> Stop planes and cars, close the coal mines etc., and do it from now.  Some countries are doing it but we must all do it.



Really the new Nazis.
Brainwashed, completely out of wack,still believing that co2 is the cause not the consequence
Living in China was scary with its ignorance and manipulation of masses but the west is no better
Not a word in the above in the main cause of issues.overpopulation or any idea on how to feed these 10 billions humans tomorrow wo using fossil energy
Half or better the population and you can give a chance to biodiversity, forest,pollution limitations and the planet can have hope
If not: the doubling or even quadrupling of co2 level is the least of your worries


----------



## rederob (8 June 2019)

qldfrog said:


> Really the new Nazis.
> Brainwashed, completely out of wack,still believing that co2 is the cause not the consequence
> Living in China was scary with its ignorance and manipulation of masses but the west is no better
> Not a word in the above in the main cause of issues.overpopulation or any idea on how to feed these 10 billions humans tomorrow wo using fossil energy
> ...



Reading your posts is a source of amusement. 
Try adding something credible instead of your uninformed commentary with crazy rants invoking Nazism.
It is proven in science that CO2 causes warming - your claims continue to be bunkum.
China is the world's greatest investor in technologies to reduce CO2 emissions.
The most populous nations have, on average, significantly lower per capita CO2 emissions.  
Remove westernised nations and the greenhouse problem goes away overnight - that's about 20% and not half the world's population.
It's really sad that with the internet available to you that basic science and maths eludes you.


----------



## basilio (8 June 2019)

rederob said:


> It's really sad that with the internet available to you that basic science and maths eludes you.



I disagree with this observation.

In my view it's *because* of the internet  that views of Qfrog, Wayne and co  flourish.

The  deliberate and systemic  undermining of science  research and basic scientific understandings  has been promoted by the fossil fuel lobby and then echoed by climate denial groups.

*These in turn have also been funded by the fossil fuel lobby.* The widespread promotion of these lies and distortions  has been accelerated by the Internet.  By now there are millions upon millions of people who fervently believe that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community has deceived the world with spurious research on the causes or indeed reality of global heating.
That's a problem..

*How Fossil Fuel Lobbyists Used “Astroturf” Front Groups to Confuse the Public*
The top lobbyist for the fossil fuel industry in the western United States secretly ran more than a dozen front groups in an attempt to undermine forward-looking policy on climate change and clean technologies.

*What Happened*
*




	

		
			
		

		
	
 This case study appears in The Disinformation Playbook. Read on for further examples and tactics. *
“California Drivers Alliance” sounds like a perfectly innocuous name. So does “Washington Consumers for Sound Fuel Policy.” After all, who doesn’t want sound fuel policy?
These groups and coalitions, however, were not what they seemed. Although made to sound like real grassroots consumer movements, these groups—and at least thirteen more like them—were actually “astroturf” front organizations secretly run by the Western States Petroleum Association (WSPA), the top lobbyist for the oil industry in the western United States. WSPA, which counts BP, Shell, ExxonMobil, Chevron, and Occidental among its members, used these fake consumer groups as part of a campaign to exaggerate public support for the lobbying goals of its member companies.
https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf
https://www.ucsusa.org/using-astroturf-front-groups-hide-fossil-fuel-lobbying-efforts


----------



## basilio (8 June 2019)

*The Climate Deception dossiers
Internal Fossil Fuel Industry Memos Reveal Decades of Corporate Disinformation 
*
https://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/The-Climate-Deception-Dossiers.pdf


----------



## moXJO (8 June 2019)

rederob said:


> China is the world's greatest investor in technologies to reduce CO2 emissions.
> The most populous nations have, on average, significantly lower per capita CO2 emissions.




Is that really true?
If you are measuring carbon on per capita in a nation of poor rural farmers I feel thats a bit of a cop out. If their middle-class  continue to grow they will end up worse. Theres also a billion people to spread the true extent of damage they are doing.


Then theres the size of what they are trying to achieve:



> The largest power producers in China have asked the government to allow for the development of between 300 and 500 new coal power plants by 2030 in a move that could single-handedly jeopardise global climate change targets.
> 
> It comes as coal-fired power capacity additions in 2018 slowed to their lowest rate since 2004, both in China and globally, though carbon emissions from the sector continued to rise, according to the International Energy Agency.
> 
> ...


----------



## rederob (8 June 2019)

moXJO said:


> Is that really true?



Yes - lots of data to confirm it.


moXJO said:


> If you are measuring carbon on per capita in a nation of poor rural farmers I feel thats a bit of a cop out.



No, we are measuring the whole population - rich and poor, just like every other country which has rich and poor.
How about the typical cop out from those who keep forgetting that until the 1990s China's CO2 footprint was barely figuring in CO2 emissions.  In other words, the western world had a 200 year head start "industrialising" and folk like you want to blame China because it still has not caught up?


moXJO said:


> Then theres the size of what they are trying to achieve:



Agreed - it's formidable.
And here's the thing that everyone keeps missing.  The western world keeps relocating massive manufacturing capacity to China, or wants cheap Chinese products, and somehow now wants China to be responsible for the consequent energy requirements imposed.  Put another way, had westernised economies not sent their manufacturing needs offshore, their emissions would be considerably higher, and China's massively lower.


----------



## moXJO (8 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Yes - lots of data to confirm it.
> No, we are measuring the whole population - rich and poor, just like every other country which has rich and poor.
> How about the typical cop out from those who keep forgetting that until the 1990s China's CO2 footprint was barely figuring in CO2 emissions.  In other words, the western world had a 200 year head start "industrialising" and folk like you want to blame China because it still has not caught up?
> Agreed - it's formidable.
> And here's the thing that everyone keeps missing.  The western world keeps relocating massive manufacturing capacity to China, or wants cheap Chinese products, and somehow now wants China to be responsible for the consequent energy requirements imposed.  Put another way, had westernised economies not sent their manufacturing needs offshore, their emissions would be considerably higher, and China's massively lower.



Whats the way forward for Australia in your opinion? 

For me personally I'd rather see fortification of our country and economy first. By that I mean food security,  health considerations (eg more shading against UV,  temperature management)  water security, Changed building codes,  etc.

I'd rather see a fast track in risk mitigation,  rather then fast tracking renewables and carbon minimization. Only because I think its too late to slow carbon at this stage. And we have a minimal effect.


----------



## wayneL (8 June 2019)

If this flurry of posts does not inducate a paid propagandist at work,  I don't know what does....  Bas gets busted for his own unsustainable lifestyle and megalithic hypocrisy,  and answers wirh an avalanche of alarmism,  at least 75% of which is debunked.

Not to mention his purulent and putrid misrepresentation of those who hold moderate opinions. 

Absolutely dishonest,  at best.


----------



## rederob (8 June 2019)

wayneL said:


> If this flurry of posts does not inducate a paid propagandist at work,  I don't know what does....  Bas gets busted for his own unsustainable lifestyle and megalithic hypocrisy,  and answers wirh an avalanche of alarmism,  at least 75% of which is debunked.
> Not to mention his purulent and putrid misrepresentation of those who hold moderate opinions.
> Absolutely dishonest,  at best.



I suspect there are lots of things you do not know about, but keep posting on.  Climate change would be a huge area where your posts suggest gross ignorance.
There are very few claims I have ever seen you make which are supported with actual evidence that show you are on the right track.
I reckon if I said 99% of your post was worthless, it would be as accurate as your "*75% of which is debunked.*"  And I reckon I could prove it.
You appear to have mastered "dishonesty" here.


----------



## basilio (8 June 2019)

Does the heading of this thread suggest its remit.? *Global Warming - How valid how serious ?*
Pointing out just how serious global warming  is, our role of humans in what is happening and its effects across all counties and the whole ecosystem seems on song.

So lets see what else is happening .

*Global temperature change attributable to external factors, new study confirms*
Date:
May 22, 2019
Source:
University of Oxford
Summary:
Researchers have confirmed that human activity and other external factors are responsible for the rise in global temperature.
Researchers at the University of Oxford have confirmed that human activity and other external factors are responsible for the rise in global temperature. While this has been the consensus of the scientific community for a long time, uncertainty remained around how natural ocean-cycles might be influencing global warming over the course of multiple decades. The answer we can now give is: very little to none.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190522120501.htm


----------



## basilio (8 June 2019)

*Extreme heat to hit one third of the African urban population*
Date:
June 5, 2019
Source:
Université de Genève
Summary:
An international team of researchers has combined demographic projections and climate scenarios across Africa for the first time. Their results reveal the number of people who will potentially be exposed to extreme temperatures.
Climate change, population growth and urbanisation are instrumental in increasing exposure to extreme temperatures. Researchers at the University of Geneva (UNIGE), Switzerland, -- in collaboration with the University of Twente (Netherlands) and the EU Joint Research Centre in Ispra (Italy) -- assessed a range of possible scenarios regarding the rate of climate change and socio-economic development in 173 African cities for the years 2030, 2060 and 2090. Their results, which are published in the journal _Earth's Future_, show that a third of African city-dwellers could be affected by deadly heat waves in 2090. The projections also highlight the influence of socio-economic development on the impact of climate change.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190605100340.htm


----------



## basilio (8 June 2019)

*No end in sight as record flooding in Midwest, Southeast persists*
*The continental U.S. has had its 12 soggiest months since modern record-keeping began.*

*Kyla Mandel  May 31, 2019, 3:50 pm*

*Historic flooding continues to saturate large stretches of land across the Midwest and Southeast United States. And with swollen rivers and reservoirs, more rain in the forecast, and an administration working to undo environmental protections, the impacts to communities, crops, infrastructure, and the economy are expected to be severe.*

*On Friday, just after midnight, a levee near Dardanelle, Arkansas, breached and, come morning, water from the Arkansas River was gushing through a 40-foot hole in the barrier, forcing some residents to evacuate.*

*Over the next week to 10 days, major or record flooding will hit every large community along the Arkansas River, the National Weather Service warned earlier this week. This flooding comes from past weeks of heavy rain which is testing the limits of aging levee infrastructure and putting crops at risk. And more heavy rain is on its way.*

*At the same time, every county in Oklahoma is currently in a state of emergency. And flooding in at least eight states along the Mississippi River is now the longest-lasting since the Great Flood of 1927.*

*In Vicksburg, Mississippi, the river has been above flood stage (the level required to cause areas not normally underwater to flood) since February 17 — over three months ago. And Baton Rouge, Louisiana, has been above flood stage since early January.*
*https://thinkprogress.org/flood-arkansas-mississippi-oklahoma-climate-ef9fb99e9ef6/*


----------



## basilio (8 June 2019)

*Austin is proving that cities in conservative states can lead on climate action*
*This month, the capital of Texas voted to support the Green New Deal.*

*E.A. Crunden  May 29, 2019, 2:47 pm
*
AUSTIN, TEXAS — This month, the capital of Texas threw its support behind the Green New Deal resolution, a bold proposal that aims to tackle both climate change and social inequities in one fell swoop. In supporting the resolution, lawmakers and advocates hope Austin can lead the way for other cities in Republican-controlled states to chart their own path.

Turning the symbolism of supporting the Green New Deal into concrete action will take significant work, however, even as the city advances new policies to mitigate and prepare for the impacts of climate change. And unlike cities in states largely controlled by Democrats, Austin is embracing the Green New Deal in a deeply conservative state dominated by the fossil fuel industry.

“As we’ve seen throughout the country, sometimes things can start from the local level,” Cyrus Reed, conservation director for the Sierra Club’s Texas chapter, told ThinkProgress. “Having a city express support is important. But to get beyond the symbolism, we’d have to decide, how do you actually come up with a plan?”

The city’s endorsement of the federal resolution, introduced by Council Member Leslie Pool, was part of two environmental proposals unanimously approved by the city council earlier this month. The other, proposed by Council Member Alison Alter, creates a comprehensive electric vehicle (EV) plan that will be part of the city’s forthcoming climate plan update. Local environmental advocates said the real victory lies in that proposal, along with the main instruction from Pool’s resolution, which calls for crafting a climate resilience plan and hiring a chief resilience officer.

“The Council recognizes we are already experiencing the adverse consequences of climate change, understands the urgency of creating a blueprint to prepare for and respond to the shocks and stressors of catastrophic climate events, and supports the general tenets of the Green New Deal,” the resolution states.

https://thinkprogress.org/austin-texas-green-new-deal-climate-action-e6f336ef11d3/


----------



## rederob (8 June 2019)

moXJO said:


> Whats the way forward for Australia in your opinion?



I am optimistic about the opportunities available to mitigate emissions, but global political will is not strong.
My view is that for Australia, at least, simple energy economics will prevail, and by 2030 we will be literally an energy powerhouse.  Opportunities to produce and sell Hydrogen via renewables can be a game changer.


moXJO said:


> I'd rather see a fast track in risk mitigation, rather then fast tracking renewables and carbon minimization. Only because I think its too late to slow carbon at this stage. And we have a minimal effect.



Renewables but, more critically, grid scale batteries are the likely solution to mitigate warming effects, so I can't see how you separate the two concepts.
The idea that any one country makes no difference overlooks the fact that emissions are cumulative.  It's the very thinking that got us to where we are, globally.


moXJO said:


> For me personally I'd rather see ... food security, health considerations (eg more shading against UV, temperature management) water security, Changed building codes, etc.



Me too.


----------



## basilio (8 June 2019)

*Why India needs to worry about climate change*

25 October 2018
A report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has warned of disastrous consequences if current trends of global warming are not reversed immediately. Aayushi Awasthy from the University of East Anglia's Energy and Resources Institute explains why this has particular consequences for India and South Asia.

The IPCC report, which was released earlier this month, has been called the most extensive warning yet on the risks of rising global temperatures.

The report says that the impact of a 1.5C increase in global temperatures will "disproportionately affect disadvantaged and vulnerable populations through food insecurity, higher food prices, income losses, lost livelihood opportunities, adverse health impacts, and population displacements".

India stands to be one of the nations most significantly affected, given its huge population and levels of inequality and poverty.

If exposed to the kind of destabilisation the report talks about, the impact on India could be devastating - not just socially but also politically.


IPCC: Climate scientists consider 'life changing' report
*For one, sea level rise will have a disastrous impact on the country, given its large coastline, and the number of people who live close to and depend on the sea for their livelihoods. 
On the other hand, deadly heatwaves - similar to one in 2015 that killed thousands of people in India and Pakistan - could soon become the norm, with the eastern Indian city of Kolkata (Calcutta) and the southern Pakistani city of Karachi likely to be the worst affected. *

And while the report says that it is not too late to reverse rising temperatures and minimise some of the harm, it will not be easy to do for countries in South Asia, which are largely developing economies with limited resources. 
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-45949323


----------



## basilio (8 June 2019)

*Every one of Europe’s 571 cities is destined for worse heat waves, droughts, or floods*
By Zoë SchlangerFebruary 22, 2018

A new analysis of climate change across Europe found that under several probable future climate scenarios, European cities will be hit harder by floods, droughts, and heat waves than previously understood.

A study published Tuesday in the journal Environmental Research Letters used all available climate models to assess what is likeliest to happen to Europe under a scenario in which the world fails to dramatically reduce carbon emissions, while population continues to grow. That scenario—dubbed RCP8.5 in scientific literature—is often pointed to as a proxy for a worst-case (though still absolutely possible) future emissions scenario, in which temperatures increase 2.6°C to 4.8°C from the 1850–1900 global average by 2050-2100.

*In that scenario, there can be a lot of variation in how climate systems respond, so the researchers tested what would happen to European cities in low-, medium-, and high-impact climate outcomes. In every outcome, Europe gets battered by more intense droughts, floods, and heat waves.
*
https://qz.com/1212443/climate-chan...ined-for-worse-heat-waves-droughts-or-floods/


----------



## rederob (8 June 2019)

basilio said:


> Pointing out just how serious global warming is, our role of humans in what is happening and its effects across all counties and the whole ecosystem seems on song.



Does that mean we can stop paying you to post, or need to pay you more because it's so serious?
You have confused me Bas.
Or did wayneL just make it up?


----------



## basilio (8 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Renewables but, more critically, grid scale batteries are the likely solution to mitigate warming effects, so I can't see how you separate the two concepts.
> The idea that any one country makes no difference overlooks the fact that emissions are cumulative. It's the very thinking that got us to where we are, globally.



At the moment  we have to  face what is already happening climate wise and then  climate change that is locked in  regardless of our efforts. 
Moxjo points make sense.  We also have to  ensure that solutions also reduce ongoing Greenhouse Gases to somehow rein in what will will otherwise be a completely catastrophic situation. 
*And somehow  the public has to come onboard with the need for such action and the costs they will entail..*


----------



## basilio (8 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Does that mean we can stop paying you to post, or need to pay you more because it's so serious?
> You have confused me Bas.
> Or did wayneL just make it up?




I do like to encourage Wayne's "creativity" and  highly individual  dexterity with reality.  
And rather than me just banging on about CC and its effects I thought "Why not spend 5 minutes on the net and demonstrate how many  places are being affected  by CC and where this going".

And YES I get paid hundreds of dollars a post to propagate the brazen lies of the world fake scientists, fake news and fake death reports. That makes total sense doesn't it ?


----------



## basilio (8 June 2019)

basilio said:


> And we know now what the dread was we felt in December. Call it climate change or climate collapse, that was the Big Dread behind the smaller ones. Climate believers, climate deniers, deep in our hearts we think it will happen somewhere else. Or, in some other time, in 2025 or 2040 or next year. But we are here to tell you, in this postcard from the former paradise, that it won’t happen next year, or somewhere else. It will happen right where you live and it could happen today. No one will be spared.
> 
> So, if you are driving around and flying on airplanes and ordering things to be shipped by truck and making money off oil stock the way so many of us are – like there’s no tomorrow? We are here to tell you there is a tomorrow and we are living in it.
> 
> If you visit, talk to us as if our dose of mega-reality is not some singular string of bad luck or an inconvenience to you. Help tether us to the reality we are – all of us – living in now and that we in southern California don’t want to forget in the face of returning to “normal”. Give us the one gift that will help us: please, let’s not go back to business as usual.



https://www.theguardian.com/comment...lifornia-climate-change-fires-flood-landslide


----------



## wayneL (8 June 2019)

basilio said:


> I do like to encourage Wayne's "creativity" and  highly individual  dexterity with reality.
> And rather than me just banging on about CC and its effects I thought "Why not spend 5 minutes on the net and demonstrate how many  places are being affected  by CC and where this going".
> 
> And YES I get paid hundreds of dollars a post to propagate the brazen lies of the world fake scientists, fake news and fake death reports. That makes total sense doesn't it ?



Amusingly,  I think you even believe the lies you create to justify your rage.

An interesting study in psychopathology.


----------



## basilio (8 June 2019)

wayneL said:


> Amusingly,  I think you even believe the lies you create to justify your rage.
> 
> *An interesting study in psychopathology  *.  ????




No probs.  I'll send you a postcard when you reach China.  Just let us know where you surface..

Keep digging!!


----------



## rederob (8 June 2019)

wayneL said:


> An interesting study in psychopathology.



You probably have the record for the most inappropriate use of words in the forum.
"*Psychopathology*" *is* the study.
Your other record is the most posts having nothing to do with a thread's topic.

Back on topic, weather events of themselves are difficult to ascribe to climate.  However, less difficult is that what was expected by way of seasonal weather events (aka climate) is more variable.  Seasons are not starting and ending as expected, leading to land use changes.

The other reality of physics is that weather events are being driven by greater energy than before.  So the prospect of increased intensity of an event will continue to rise.  It may not mean that we have, for example, more cyclones.  But when they do occur there is a good chance that they will do more damage because not only will they be drawing more energy from warmer oceans, the extra energy will make them longer-lived.  More rain-sodden ground combined with stronger winds create an insurer's nightmare.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 June 2019)

moXJO said:


> For me personally I'd rather see fortification of our country and economy first. By that I mean food security, health considerations (eg more shading against UV, temperature management) water security, Changed building codes, etc.




Pink batts perhaps ?


----------



## qldfrog (8 June 2019)

moXJO said:


> Whats the way forward for Australia in your opinion?
> 
> For me personally I'd rather see fortification of our country and economy first. By that I mean food security,  health considerations (eg more shading against UV,  temperature management)  water security, Changed building codes,  etc.
> 
> I'd rather see a fast track in risk mitigation,  rather then fast tracking renewables and carbon minimization. Only because I think its too late to slow carbon at this stage. And we have a minimal effect.



Once again, you say it better than i would.we might be twins in a parallel universe.but indeed, we as a country can affect zip, so if we truly believe the alarmist predictions, then we need to strengthen our country.


----------



## Knobby22 (9 June 2019)

Michael Bloomberg to spend $500 mil of his own money to help close down coal power plants in the USA for the cause of climate change.

That will put him on the alt right hate list.


----------



## qldfrog (9 June 2019)

And how will he do it? Brainwashing people to organise rally or will he put his money in building green power station
Last i heard he was pushing for gas
During this interlude, a few facts
https://www.google.com/amp/s/thecon...7-billion-tonnes-in-2018-a-record-high-108041
And
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/global-primary-energy


----------



## qldfrog (9 June 2019)

Just saying, so if sea rise is actually expected with a co2 caused global warming, better build sea walls


----------



## brisman (9 June 2019)

_According to Dr. Miskolczi's research, increases in CO2 levels have not increased the global-average absorbing power of the atmosphere. His peer reviewed research has not been refuted by his former employer NASA, just ignored. Current CO2 levels are well below levels the earth has had before our species. So it is not terrifying._


----------



## rederob (9 June 2019)

brisman said:


> According to _Dr. Miskolczi's research, increases in CO2 levels have not increased the global-average absorbing power of the atmosphere._



Very true - when you add more CO2 you get more CO2.  That's not rocket science is it?


brisman said:


> Current CO2 levels are well below levels the earth has had before our species.



True - when there was no human life on the planet there were times that CO2 levels were higher.  However, that's not the case in the past million years or so:








qldfrog said:


> ... if sea rise is actually expected with a co2 caused global warming, better build sea walls



Sea levels have been rising for well over a hundred years.  Here's a chart showing accurate levels since altimetry:




Ask the Dutch how much they will be spending on raising their sea walls if you think it's easy.


----------



## kahuna1 (9 June 2019)

brisman said:


> _Dr. Miskolczi_




Your seriously quoting someone from Heartland institute climate denial blog ?

_The Heartland Institute is a Chicago-based free market think tank and 501(c)(3) charity that has been at the forefront of denying the scientific evidence for man-made climate change. The Heartland Institute has received at least $676,500 from ExxonMobil since 1998 but no longer discloses its funding sources. The Union of Concerned Scientists found (PDF) that “*Nearly 40% of the total funds that the Heartland Institute has received from ExxonMobil since 1998 were specifically designated for climate change projects*_

https://www.desmogblog.com/heartland-institute

Oh and with them Koch Brothers involved.

Why ?

Why would any sane person refer to any of their information as being anything other than stupid ?

I note from the survey on this thread ... we have about 50% who believe the Earth is flat, that NASA never went to the moon and Donald Trump is the second coming and his view that climate change does not include the USA because they have "Crystal clear" Air .... is amusing and delusional.

Then again he is at the moment testing his chemistry with the Queen who just turned age 93 in April.

It was instant, according to him, shows what a great lady she is to convince a buffoon she is not thinking he is an imbecile.

People will believe what they wish, until it occurs to them. So with climate change, speaking about effects exponentially getting worse over the next 50-100 years, is easily discarded because it is not effecting them and their lives. Maybe, maybe, they should not breed ? Trump sadly did and took all his spawn to the UK. All of them even his girlfriend, Ivanka.

HE saw not protests, no protestors, all 75,000 of them, no logic in Prince Charles I am sure impassioned talk about climate change and he walked out of the meeting as stupid as when he walked in.

Pity the poor Americans. Let alone the those fleeing the two most dangerous nations in the region. One with the highest murder rate in the world, the other with the highest crime rate and they flee .... or used to, North into Mexico then the USA. Now even that exit is blocked.

Funny old world we live in where ... common sense, science and even logic take a back seat. In the latter case, its not the Mexicans trying to get to the USA, its two nations further south in utter turmoil. USA response, much like climate change was to CUT aid to them, then try and blackmail Mexico into some trade deal which they already had agreed to try and do more to stop the immigrants.

Meanwhile, the USA floods, white stupid America remains glued to FOX news. Trump remains with one hand on his twitter, sitting on the dunny watching Fox news with a burger in each hand. Strange .... why is Ivanka in there ?;;;;; EWWW

We sadly are being led by this buffoon. HE is OUR President after all, he is our dear leader. Meanwhile Arctic Ice hit an all time April low, and a low measured since 1979 by satellites, but then again, climate deniers even dispute this. They dispute it all.

Go watch FOX and enjoy !!


----------



## qldfrog (10 June 2019)

My own view is that co2 increase is a consequence not a cause, not been convince by any hard facts.
Some global warming is caused by human activity, abd basically population increase has reached a stage where we are too numerous and f up the planet.the focus on co2 is a distraction and probably a fatal one


----------



## rederob (10 June 2019)

qldfrog said:


> My own view is that co2 increase is a consequence not a cause, not been convince by any hard facts.
> Some global warming is caused by human activity, abd basically population increase has reached a stage where we are too numerous and f up the planet.the focus on co2 is a distraction and probably a fatal one



Yes, lots of people are ignorant of climate science.
While the issues of population growth are quite independent of what increases in CO2 levels will do.
As to "hard facts," there is not much  evidence you would know where to find them.


----------



## basilio (13 June 2019)

Just a reminder of how glaciologists are seeing the rapid melting of the Antarctic ice shelf and the potential effects on world wide sea levels. There are some serious stings towards the end of this  article.

*  Climate change: sea level rise could displace millions of people within two generations  *
May 21, 2019 6.59am AEST

Antarctica is further from civilisation than any other place on Earth. The Greenland ice sheet is closer to home but around one tenth the size of its southern sibling. Together, these two ice masses hold enough frozen water to raise global mean sea level by 65 metres if they were to suddenly melt. But how likely is this to happen?
https://theconversation.com/climate...lions-of-people-within-two-generations-116753


----------



## basilio (14 June 2019)

*Climate Change in Alaska today.
 
 Climate crisis: Alaska is melting and it’s likely to accelerate global heating 

The state has just had its warmest spring on record, causing permafrost to thaw and dramatically reshaping some areas

  

  

 
Shares
34





Rick Knecht, an archeologist, shows a site threatened by climate breakdown erosion caused by melting permafrost on the Yukon Delta in Alaska. Photograph: Mark Ralston/AFP/Getty Images
A city in western Alaska has lost a huge stretch of riverbank to erosion that may turn it into an island, amid renewed warnings from scientists over the havoc triggered by the accelerating melting of the state’s ice and permafrost.

Residents of the small city of Akiak were alarmed to find the Kuskokwim River suddenly much closer to housing after approximately 75ft to 100ft of riverbank disappeared over the course of just a few hours.

The erosion, which occurred late last month, stripped away the riverbank for the entire length of Akiak, which has a population of around 340.

“We got about three houses in imminent danger, and the rest of them will be coming along pretty quickly,” said David Gilila, Akiak’s city administrator.

Gilila said he was appealing for funding to relocate some homes, warning that the water could soon surround the city. “We’ll still be here, but we’ll probably become an island,” he said.





  What happened to winter? Vanishing ice convulses Alaskans' way of life  
Read more
The drastic reshaping of Akiak is likely down to thawing permafrost, the frozen organic matter held within soils. Alaska is heating up twice as quickly as the rest of the US as a result of human-driven climate breakdown, increasingly causing this permafrost to thaw and destabilize buildings and cause roads to buckle.

“The changes are really accelerating in Alaska,” said Susan Natali, a scientist and Arctic expert at the Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts. “It’s pretty likely this riverbank in Akiak was lost because of thawing permafrost, given where it’s situated and the warm winter and spring they’ve had. It’s not a problem that’s going to go away.”

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...g-and-its-likely-to-accelerate-global-heating


*


----------



## basilio (14 June 2019)

Else where in Alaska

*What happened to winter? Vanishing ice convulses Alaskans' way of life *
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/21/alaska-climate-change-winter-way-of-life


----------



## explod (15 June 2019)

In the Canadian Arctic, layers of permafrost that scientists expected to remain frozen for at least 70 years have already begun thawing. The once-frozen surface is now sinking and dotted with melt ponds and from above looks a bit like Swiss cheese, satellite images reveal. "We were astounded that this system responded so quickly to the higher air temperatures," said Louise Farquharson, a co-author of the study and postdoctoral fellow at the Permafrost Laboratory at the Univer...

See More




About this website

livescience.com

Arctic Permafrost Is Going Through a Rapid Meltdown — 70 Years Early


----------



## Joules MM1 (15 June 2019)

@CassieWilson said:
			
		

> Remember that bell curve from stats? The bulk of temps, those close to average, sit near the middle of the curve. Record temps, which are rare, sit on the fringes. As the world warms from increasing GHG, the whole curve shifts which is why we are witnessing more extreme heat.


----------



## brisman (16 June 2019)

kahuna1 said:


> Your seriously quoting someone from Heartland institute climate denial blog ?




No I was actually referring to Dr Miskolczi's peer reviewed published research which you have also not refuted, just ignored, or in your case with name calling and references to funding which we all know is providing a living for many on all sides. No doubt you haven't read it:

http://owww.met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol108_No4_01.pdf

Anyway, my personal view is that we are seeing recent global warming, so we should do something about it. As above we need to go beyond CO2 as the cause and keep researching to improve our understanding of what is causing it as our current understanding needs work. Scientists who are not in alignment with the current paradigm are "shut down", as I have personally been at work.

Above all we need to avoid name calling and avoid only reading articles from people that agree with our personally held views.

Whatever you think of Bjorn Lomborg, apparently labeled a "lukewarmer", I think he made a good point in the Weekend Australian 15-16 June, that rather than wasting our resources on subsidising solar and wind generators, who cannot provide base load, we should be researching new technologies for revolutionary change, such as the green revolution did for reducing the level of starving in the world.  We didn't do it by the rich eating less.

My personal favourites would be research to make hot rocks economic and improving the economics of using hydrogen to store solar energy to generate at night and use in transport but there could be better ones out there.


----------



## rederob (16 June 2019)

brisman said:


> Scientists who are not in alignment with the current paradigm are "shut down", as I have personally been at work.



Utter bunkum!
There is no such thing as the "current paradigm" because AGW is a verifiable theory.
What are cut down are the fools who keep trotting out rubbish that has been refuted time and again, yet they persist.
You are really good at quoting irrelevances, and not so good on FACTS.
30+ years of solid research on climate matters has not found causes beyond GHGs so to suggest even more needs to be done is a tad fanciful.
And, there are no subsidies for commercial generators of wind and solar, so Lomborg should line up his ducks better.
As for storage, there are many options available, and quite are few are already commercialised.  In a fashion it's a bit like the Beta v's VHS race a few decades back, with lithium batteries presently winning the sprint, while flow batteries are looking at longer races.


----------



## kahuna1 (16 June 2019)

brisman said:


> Bjorn Lomborg




*Bjørn Lomborg*
*Credentials*

Ph.D., Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen (1994). [1]
M.A., political science (1991).

Lomborg is best known as the author of _The Skeptical Environmentalist_ and _Cool It_, two books that downplay the risks of global warming. Despite these publications, Lomborg does not have a background in climate science and has published no peer-reviewed articles on climate change.




*You are Not kidding with another imbecile ... used as a source.*


----------



## basilio (19 June 2019)

explod said:


> In the Canadian Arctic, layers of permafrost that scientists expected to remain frozen for at least 70 years have already begun thawing. The once-frozen surface is now sinking and dotted with melt ponds and from above looks a bit like Swiss cheese, satellite images reveal. "We were astounded that this system responded so quickly to the higher air temperatures," said Louise Farquharson, a co-author of the study and postdoctoral fellow at the Permafrost Laboratory at the Univer...
> 
> See More
> 
> ...




*This is beyond anything climate scientists thought could happen so soon. *
The implications for a mass escape of methane from the permafrost and subsequent out of control global warming are     
_
 The researchers recorded permafrost thawing to depths that were not expected until air temperatures reached levels the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has predicted will occur after 2090, according to one of its "moderate" climate change models. The IPCC, which is a body of the United Nations, provides scientific information to help guide countries' climate policies.


 The researchers believe higher summer temperatures, low levels of insulating vegetation and the presence of ground ice near the surface contributed to the exceptionally rapid and deep thawing._


----------



## wayneL (19 June 2019)

Well, I think I'd prefer to be wiped out as a species,  than tolerate the dystopian idiocracy the Far left is trying to enact. 

Let's just take an asteroid and get it over with.


----------



## explod (19 June 2019)

wayneL said:


> Well, I think I'd prefer to be wiped out as a species,  than tolerate the dystopian idiocracy the Far left is trying to enact.
> 
> Let's just take an asteroid and get it over with.



So it's your view that the far left is making these observable irrefutable facts up.

You'll notice Wayne, if you look carefully, that outside of your stables there is a gate through which you will find the outside world.


----------



## basilio (19 June 2019)

wayneL said:


> Well, I think I'd prefer to be wiped out ...




Wayne if the  unbelievable terror of being ground under the jackboots of the  marching Left is too horrific then I can understand your desire for a  personal  early exit.

But perhaps the rest of us can pay some attention to the very real problems of human caused global heating and  save what we can of our civilization ? And given that everyone is in the same situation maybe this is the time to create a common front ?


----------



## wayneL (19 June 2019)

basilio said:


> Wayne if the  unbelievable terror of being ground under the jackboots of the  marching Left is too horrific then I can understand your desire for a  personal  early exit.
> 
> But perhaps the rest of us can pay some attention to the very real problems of human caused global heating and  save what we can of our civilization ? And given that everyone is in the same situation maybe this is the time to create a common front ?





explod said:


> So it's your view that the far left is making these observable irrefutable facts up.
> 
> You'll notice Wayne, if you look carefully, that outside of your stables there is a gate through which you will find the outside world.



Who are you Plod?  Cathy Newman?

Fortunately, in the real world,  basilio's Gestapo is a small minority and will be obliterated if they get too far out of line.

In the real world,  Trump will win again, the EU will eventually go down and sensible people will successfully mitigate whatever changes the climate cycles through.

Millenials will reach their 50's and be utterly embarrassed that they were had.


----------



## IFocus (19 June 2019)

wayneL said:


> the EU will eventually go down




And wars will resume.........


----------



## explod (19 June 2019)

wayneL said:


> Who are you Plod?  Cathy Newman?
> 
> Fortunately, in the real world,  basilio's Gestapo is a small minority and will be obliterated if they get too far out of line.
> 
> ...



"There is a common misconception among newer activists in the liberty movement that* the idea of the “false left/right paradigm” means that there is no political spectrum*; that the entire notion of left vs right is a fabrication.* This is not exactly the case.* When we talk about false paradigms in regards to politics (or geopolitics), what we are actually referring to is the elitist class, otherwise known as globalists, and the fact that they have no left or right political orientation. *They do not care about Democrats or Republicans, they have no loyalty to either party.* Their loyalty is to their own agenda, and they will exploit BOTH sides to get what they want whenever possible."

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-18/smith-examination-leftist-cult-and-their-religion


----------



## wayneL (20 June 2019)

explod said:


> "There is a common misconception among newer activists in the liberty movement that* the idea of the “false left/right paradigm” means that there is no political spectrum*; that the entire notion of left vs right is a fabrication.* This is not exactly the case.* When we talk about false paradigms in regards to politics (or geopolitics), what we are actually referring to is the elitist class, otherwise known as globalists, and the fact that they have no left or right political orientation. *They do not care about Democrats or Republicans, they have no loyalty to either party.* Their loyalty is to their own agenda, and they will exploit BOTH sides to get what they want whenever possible."
> 
> https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-18/smith-examination-leftist-cult-and-their-religion



Oh 100% agree with you plod,  I mentioned this several times myself on here. However we cannot ignore the fact that the globalists are going by the Fabian Society playbook and have been so for decades now. 

Socialism facilitates the globalist agenda,  particularly the society destroying radical social agenda bwing enforced at the moment.

Climate change alarmism plays into that rather nicely also. 

@IFocus I doubt it.  The number of nukes floating around should ensure the only wars in Europe are civil (very real possibility *because of EU policy),  or trade.


----------



## IFocus (20 June 2019)

wayneL said:


> @IFocus I doubt it.  The number of nukes floating around should ensure the only wars in Europe are civil (very real possibility *because of EU policy),  or trade.




If I remember rightly one of the drivers for the EU was to contain Germany which it has done nicely militarily even though it dominates economically still a better out come.

Some thing not discussed by the Brexit pushers should the Brits leave.

The current nut case conservative politics we see now used to be about war some thing not far off I suspect.


----------



## basilio (20 June 2019)

Gobal warming is melting the glaciers in the  Himalayan Mountains at an accelerating pace.
Effects on the Indian sub continent will be catastrophic. 

*Cold War spy satellite images show Himalayan glaciers are melting fast*
Share


 Share on Facebook 
 Share on Twitter 
Print
 Mail 
Other share options

Posted 40 minutes ago



The once-classified spy satellite images provide crucial missing evidence to scientists.
(NRO via AP)
Cold War-era spy satellite images are showing scientists that glaciers on the Himalayas are now melting about twice as fast as they used to.

The Asian mountain range, which includes Mount Everest, has been losing ice at a rate of about 1 per cent a year since 2000, according to a study published on Wednesday in the journal Science Advances.

*"The amount of ice [lost] is scary but what is much more scary is the doubling of the melt rate,"* said Josh Maurer, a glacier researcher at Columbia University's Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory and lead author of the study.

..  the loss of the ice means current and future disruptions of water supplies — both surges and shortages — for the hundreds of millions of people in the region who rely on it for hydropower, agriculture and drinking, said study co-author Jorg Schaefer, a climate geochemistry professor at Columbia.

"Disaster is in the making here," Mr Schaefer said.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06...are-melting-fast/11226838?section=environment


----------



## wayneL (20 June 2019)

IFocus said:


> If I remember rightly one of the drivers for the EU was to contain Germany which it has done nicely militarily even though it dominates economically still a better out come.
> 
> Some thing not discussed by the Brexit pushers should the Brits leave.
> 
> The current nut case conservative politics we see now used to be about war some thing not far off I suspect.



Any wars will be defensive against the lunatic left ;-)


----------



## basilio (20 June 2019)

wayneL said:


> Any wars will be defensive against the lunatic left ;-)





Of course they will.  They will follow the current  US/Trump policy  premptive strike policy. Anyone who doesn't agree with Trumps dictates is a danger to the the US and needs to be dealt with accordingly...


----------



## wayneL (20 June 2019)

basilio said:


> Of course they will.  They will follow the current  US/Trump policy  premptive strike policy. Anyone who doesn't agree with Trumps dictates is a danger to the the US and needs to be dealt with accordingly...



Ah yes, I forgot....  Cheetoh Hitler bad


----------



## basilio (21 June 2019)

Back to reality.  How global heating is affecting the world.

*Taps run dry in India’s sixth biggest city as millions contend with water crisis*
https://www.heraldsun.com.au/techno...s/news-story/f8044e522048a78e53ff97412839f762


----------



## basilio (22 June 2019)

Don't know how many times it has to said for the penny to drop but* CC will have  a huge impact on business.  *Understanding and dealing with that certainty should be top of corporate governance.

*Businesses that ignore climate change could face 'Kodak moment', warns APRA*
By senior business correspondent Peter Ryan
Updated yesterday at 3:34pm





* Photo:* A 'Kodak moment" refers to the film giant that failed to see the rapid rise of the digital world. (Reuters: Stefan Wermuth) 
*Related Story:* Fund set up to fight climate change considers 'insane' idea to give money to coal-fired power
*Related Story:* Pope Francis backs carbon price in appeal to climate deniers
*Related Story:* World's largest sovereign wealth fund to dump billions in coal investments
*Related Story:* Nearly a billion people on the frontlines of climate change, including millions of Australians: report
Climate change pain is inevitable with the only question being "how much and when", a top prudential regulator has warned.

*Key points:*

Senior APRA official Geoff Summerhayes says it is clear that climate change financial risks are now "orthodox economic thinking"
Mr Summerhayes says "government spending decisions may need to be reprioritised" to spread the costs of climate change
NAB chairman and former Treasury secretary Ken Henry says Australia will move to 100pc renewable electricity by mid-century, even without a carbon price


Australian Prudential Regulation Authority executive Geoff Summerhayes said businesses that ignore climate change risks could confront their own "Kodak moment", referring to the film giant that failed to foresee the rapid rise of the digital world and went into bankruptcy protection.

"Companies that delay or avoid adjusting to new economic realities, no matter how famous or successful, can quickly find themselves on the verge of a Kodak moment," Mr Summerhayes warned an insurance conference in Singapore.

Mr Summerhayes said the warnings about foreseeable and potentially catastrophic climate change as a first-order economic risk were no longer limited to fringe groups and environmentalists but now include conservative bodies, such as the Reserve Bank of Australia, APRA and corporate regulator ASIC.

"When a central bank, a prudential regulator and a conduct regulator, with barely a hipster beard or hemp shirt between them, start warning that climate change is a financial risk, it's clear that position is now orthodox economic thinking," he said.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-06...could-face-collapse/11235142?section=business


----------



## cogs (22 June 2019)

Is this Global Warming or Climate Change?

https://www.news.com.au/technology/...t/news-story/50906eac539b4fa9303ae95302b7f36b 
*Record breaking cold weather hits Australia’s south east*
The mercury in the NSW town, close to the Murray River, sank to -5.6C early on Sunday morning — that’s the coldest it’s been for 110 years.

It was even more icy further north as winter records were broken across NSW and Victoria — some towns recorded their coldest morning *ever*.

It’s so freezing, the NSW Fire and Rescue Service has been forced to warn people not to fire up barbecues indoors.


----------



## rederob (22 June 2019)

cogs said:


> Is this Global Warming or Climate Change?



Weather is not climate.
Record highs and lows are set somewhere every day.  This links to the last week, across the globe.


----------



## qldfrog (24 June 2019)

https://whyclimatechanges.com/impossible/
I did not go in the fine details, but as i personally believe that co2 or methane is not a cause of GW but a consequence,
 that climate change exists ans most probably human based,
 that any y12 student can find that fossil energy released since the industrial revolution can easily explain a few degrees of atmosphere heating,
I find interesting the notion that ozone layer destruction could actually be the cause.and it is true that the uv energy hitting earth instead of bouncing is quite enormous.

Sadly, no way to tax the destruction of the ozone layer in the west for the globalists, so lets stop eating meat, boo the western cars and be blind to overpopulation or real environmental problems


----------



## qldfrog (24 June 2019)

Also read an interesting article about Himalayan glaciers losses, explaining how soot is darkening the glaciers and melting them at an ever increasing rate
Indian industrialisation mostly
For anyone who has seen snow melting, they will easily understand that problem as snow gets dirtier and dirtier..so blacker as it melts..
But let's blame GW anyway and tax your car in Australia to save these glaciers


----------



## rederob (24 June 2019)

qldfrog said:


> I did not go in the fine details, but as i personally believe that co2 or methane is not a cause of GW but a consequence ...



If you cannot show that to be so, why keep repeating it?  There is no science supporting your "belief."


qldfrog said:


> Sadly, no way to tax the destruction of the ozone layer in the west for the globalists...



That issue was resolved many years ago by an instrument similar in nature to the Paris Agreement.


----------



## cogs (24 June 2019)

rederob said:


> Weather is not climate.
> Record highs and lows are set somewhere every day.  This links to the last week, across the globe.



So to answer my question then, you would say it is neither?
And yes correct it should be weather, and this should apply to all and any other references there are, and have been, to any weather related media (and other) which pull short term weather related events referring them to 'Climate Change'.
This forum discussion alone references record hot temperatures occurring etc.

Climate changes every second of every day. It is an indisputable cleverly chosen title.


----------



## So_Cynical (24 June 2019)

Interesting video - Bill Gates-Backed Carbon Capture Plant Does The Work Of 40 Million Trees, BHP funding it as well.
`


----------



## rederob (24 June 2019)

cogs said:


> So to answer my question then, you would say it is neither?



No!


cogs said:


> Climate changes every second of every day. It is an indisputable cleverly chosen title.



That's weather.
You are not good at this are you?


----------



## qldfrog (24 June 2019)

interesting, until we realise co2 is not actually the problem, I am also a bit suspicious on how on hell we will find enough calcium..and to have a close cycle, we would need to release and store the co2//mission impossible
Nonwithstanding the fact the west would of course foot the bill via more taxes, decreasing even further our competitivity vs China belting co2 like an addicted smoker
The chineses are still ROL


----------



## qldfrog (18 July 2019)

@Smurf1976 ,@explod ,@wayneL 
If you want to have a scientific approach on global warming, why not have a look at this beauty
http://click2.rumrebellion.club/t/FA/lPU/AAGrTA/AAgAHg/wmc/ABWVnw/AQ/mCxC
Finland research released recently explaining why the alarmist reports are just BS and human/CO2 effect is no where near as important as brainwashed into people
Any real scientist should have some doubts as to the co2 claims,if only considering the levels were so much higher in the far past when earth was actually creating these coal deposits
These types of research reinforce my conviction we are led in a Cabal
Co2 is the least of our concern, but overpopulation, biodiversity collapse are  much bigger threaths.
Renewable are good, if only because fossil fuels are limited and getting harder to get, but there is no need for the west to commit suicide for no reason.
Might also explain why China does not give a hoot


----------



## satanoperca (18 July 2019)

qldfrog said:


> @Smurf1976 ,
> Co2 is the least of our concern, but overpopulation, biodiversity collapse are  much bigger threaths.




Total agree with the statement, but the reality is people are simple, and Co2 is easy for them to understand, overpopulation is racists and biodiversity is to big a word for average Joe to understand.

End results, we are going to f---k the planet, biodiversity will diminish and over time population will decrease (if you cannot have water or food = death for millions if not billions, war will erupt.)

I getting up to go for a surf, while I still can, then off to eat some fresh tuna, while it is still available.


----------



## basilio (18 July 2019)

qldfrog said:


> @Smurf1976 ,@explod ,@wayneL
> If you want to have a scientific approach on global warming, why not have a look at this beauty
> http://click2.rumrebellion.club/t/FA/lPU/AAGrTA/AAgAHg/wmc/ABWVnw/AQ/mCxC
> Finland research released recently explaining why the alarmist reports are just BS and human/CO2 effect is no where near as important as brainwashed into people
> ...




Actually Froggie all this proves is that climate change denialists will follow any sort of total rubbish that tries to show CC is not real.

Why not check out exactly what sort of  make believe "science" is behind is load of cods whallop

*This Paper Has Climate Change Deniers Very Excited. There's Just One Tiny Problem*
*..*
They were quick to point out what the study is actually based on is unclear, as the paper "provides neither the source of the data it uses nor the physics responsible for the proposed relationship between clouds and global temperature," and the document declares the authors do not consider computer models as evidence.

*The scientists and experts the organization asked to review this paper – vital in the peer-review process – list among the many issues the fact that "[the] document only cites six references, four of which are the authors’ own, and of these, two are not actually published." Crucial data sources are not provided, figures used to support their claims are at odds with peer-reviewed studies, and the authors make claims "well beyond the scope of their data, without justification" they concluded.*

The paper's authors wrote that "clouds and humidity are causing all the temperature change, but satellite measurements suggest, if anything, the opposite," Mark Richardson of the University of Californa, Los Angeles/NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, one of the experts consulted said, citing his sources like a proper scientist.

*That the paper is not scientifically viable has been proven*. Of course, any retractions that are published will not be seen by as many people as the original uncritical articles themselves, so the damage has already been done.
https://www.iflscience.com/environm...rs-very-excited-theres-just-one-tiny-problem/


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 July 2019)

qldfrog said:


> Finland research released recently explaining why the alarmist reports are just BS and human/CO2 effect is no where near as important as brainwashed into people



I claim no expertise on that but what I see around me is lots of people, including those who say the whole thing's some sort of emergency, making excuses to avoid taking action.

That tells me that either the problem is drastically overstated, that we're already stuffed and they know it, or that some who claim to be supporting emissions reduction are in fact pushing some other objective.

Which one I'm unsure but it's hard to find any other explanation for some of what goes on.

I maintain my view that common sense says that changing the composition of the earth's atmosphere would not be without consequence, that trapping heat is an expected consequence of adding certain gases, but that there's a lot of conflicting information, in the form of words versus action mostly, as to the extent of how serious it is.


----------



## qldfrog (18 July 2019)

You are incredible @basilio but that is the trademark of fanatism
Do you not have at least an intellectual curiosity in trying to prove either views,doing your own researches?
Looking at facts and rough figures?
Not predigested arguments

Just wipe that paper like that, anything no supporting the cause
Never a doubt, fully sticking to the fight, till the end
I witnessed this with Communist militants in France still fighting for  USSR when even Gorbachev had given up
Anyway, i will let your delusion go and keep quiet again, how many people are going to die: depressed, loosing jobs or starving in 2 decades because of this hysteria


----------



## rederob (19 July 2019)

qldfrog said:


> You are incredible @basilio but that is the trademark of fanatism
> Do you not have at least an intellectual curiosity in trying to prove either views,doing your own researches?



The shoe continues to be on the other foot, as your claims here have never stood any reasoned test.
The authors of the paper cannot get it published in actual scientific journals as it cannot get past peer review, so they resorted to Arxiv.  The authors tried to have their views published in AR5, but were clearly told why they lacked merit.  
In the meantime, there are folk like you who latch onto the biggest loads of codswallop doing the rounds and now feign misrepresentation.


----------



## rederob (19 July 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> I claim no expertise on that but what I see around me is lots of people, including those who say the whole thing's some sort of emergency, making excuses to avoid taking action.



Your evidence is WHAT?


Smurf1976 said:


> That tells me that either the problem is drastically overstated, that we're already stuffed and they know it, or that some who claim to be supporting emissions reduction are in fact pushing some other objective.



That tells me you are avoiding the science and creating arguments which have little to do with what we *should *know but refuse to act decisively on.
Exactly what evidence do you need to be convinced that there is an issue which keeps getting worse, and has been the case since the first IPCC assessment came out in 1990?


Smurf1976 said:


> Which one I'm unsure but it's hard to find any other explanation for some of what goes on.



Yet the planet continues to warm in an environment where for the past 40 years it should have been in a cooling trend, so what type of explanation have you been looking for? 


Smurf1976 said:


> I maintain my view that common sense says that changing the composition of the earth's atmosphere would not be without consequence, that trapping heat is an expected consequence of adding certain gases, but that there's a lot of conflicting information, in the form of words versus action mostly, as to the extent of how serious it is.



Actually it's science that tells us things that common sense often later accepts, once it is understood eg heliocentrism.
Your idea that there is "*a lot of conflicting information*" is not shared by the climate science community, so perhaps elaborate.


----------



## wayneL (19 July 2019)

Meanwhile, the real pollution problems are ignored. At least their political agenda is failing,  despite a exponential ramping up of rhetoric.


----------



## IFocus (19 July 2019)

satanoperca said:


> I getting up to go for a surf, while I still can,.




A mate of mine calls it hydro therapy a picture of me in the Mentawai getting my therapy a few years ago 

Maybe we should start a surfing thread?


----------



## sptrawler (19 July 2019)

IFocus said:


> A mate of mine calls it hydro therapy a picture of me in the Mentawai getting my therapy a few years ago
> 
> Maybe we should start a surfing thread?



Had a custom board made at 'sunrise' surfboards, in the car park at Yallingup, a hundred years ago. Now I have that many joint replacements, I'd rust if I went surfing.
Oh to be young again, fluck all money and a great time, instead of plenty of money and fluck all time.


----------



## wayneL (19 July 2019)

sptrawler said:


> Had a custom board made at 'sunrise' surfboards, in the car park at Yallingup, a hundred years ago. Now I have that many joint replacements, I'd rust if I went surfing.
> Oh to be young again, fluck all money and a great time, instead of plenty of money and fluck all time.



I may have had a board made by that same fellow.... my memory of those days is a little hazey.

But I've always wondered if n***** head is still called n*****head these days.


----------



## sptrawler (19 July 2019)

wayneL said:


> I may have had a board made by that same fellow.... my memory of those days is a little hazey.
> 
> But I've always wondered if n***** head is still called n*****head these days.



It closed years ago, the whole place has changed a lot since the 1970's, you wouldn't recognise it.


----------



## wayneL (19 July 2019)

sptrawler said:


> It closed years ago, the whole place has changed a lot since the 1970's, you wouldn't recognise it.



I visited the area in around 2005, even then I was absolutely astonished at the change


----------



## orr (19 July 2019)

Yeah Yeah Yeah and I've been in Line-up or two with Westerly Windina back awhile when she went by a different name...
Now back to topic... Things would have it that the ADF has factored in the likely consequences Human induced Gobal Warming. Stating bluntly to our recently re-eleceted "theocratic' end of days commissars  the likely hood of 100 million climate refugees.
Some here concerned about errant plastic bags though; this doesn't seem to rank toward the top of the ADF 'Serious' list.


----------



## IFocus (19 July 2019)

wayneL said:


> But I've always wondered if n***** head is still called n*****head these days.




Yep,  if you are over a certain age


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 July 2019)

rederob said:


> Your evidence is WHAT?



The abundance of what I see around me.

Go and talk to a few solar installers. You know, blue collar workers who go up on roofs putting up panels all day or their bosses who quote on the job. They'll all tell you the same - people in wealthy suburbs of the big cities, the big two in particular, won't have them visible from the street. Cos yeah, looking at roofs is more important than CO2, right?

Now ponder why the sales of heat pump and solar water heaters have collapsed? Too expensive apparently. Yep, saving money tops saving the planet in the minds of most.

....unless it comes to flying or driving of course. Constant complaints about airlines squeezing the seats closer together and yet from an emissions perspective that's exactly what they should be doing. Economy class beats business class most certainly if the aim is reducing emissions and so on - lobby the airlines to scrap the higher classes altogether and we can all be crammed in meaning fewer flights are needed and thus lower emissions.

Now go to any road in any of the capital cities and have a look at the cars driving past. Lots of nice expensive cars which are far bigger, thus emitting more CO2, than its owner could honestly say they actually need. It's all about "prestige" and "comfort" and so on you see. Gotta have the right badge yes.

.....unless it's an electric car of course. They're not selling at all well and cost is part of that reason. People are happy to spend an extra $30K to impress people they've never met with their "prestige" car but won't spend the same to actually help the planet. That speaks volumes.

Now let's get a bit more serious and ponder the question about why emissions have dramatically increased since this issue became mainstream public knowledge in the late 1980's? Brace yourself for all the reasons why we had to raise GDP in China, improve urban air quality, improve vehicle safety and why population growth isn't so bad and so on. Yep, a whole list of things all more important than CO2 apparently.

Meanwhile down in Tassie at the moment there's a fair bit of outrage because Bob Brown, yes that man, is protesting about wind farms spoiling the scenery. Yep, can't develop the highest grade wind resource available that's anywhere remotely close to the major loads in this country because transmission lines and wind turbines spoil the view. If his aim was to unite Labor, Liberal and most of the Tasmanian population then he's done it. Public support for renewables is pretty high in Tas - even the state branch of the Liberal party has for years been pro-renewables as is Labor.

Put that all together and there's rather a lot of people, including the inner city types who statistically are most likely to vote Green and the former leader of that same party, coming up with excuse after excuse as to why something else is more important than reducing CO2 emissions.

Now as someone who's been involved with a few real emergencies, work and personal, I can assure you that this sort of stuff is not what happens when anyone thinks they're dealing with a real, actual emergency situation. Nobody worries about damn aesthetics or prestige if they honestly believe there's a real, actual crisis to be dealt with and that goes for anything from a flood to equipment failure to human injury. If there's a real, actual crisis and everyone involved perceives it to be so then you won't hear any BS excuses for not doing something about it pronto.

What I'm seeing tells me very clearly that many who claim to be concerned aren't really taking it too seriously. We wouldn't hear all these excuses if they were.

For the record, personally I do think there's a problem with CO2 although I won't claim to have precise knowledge as to the severity. I do choose practical actions over excuses yes.


----------



## rederob (19 July 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> The abundance of what I see around me



That's equivalent to not differentiating weather from climate.
I saw nothing in the rest of your post that suggests you are arguing about climate science as distinct from anecdote.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 July 2019)

rederob said:


> I saw nothing in the rest of your post that suggests you are arguing about climate science as distinct from anecdote.



Nowhere have I said that I am arguing about science indeed I have openly said that, since I am not a climate scientist, I am not an expert on the subject.

What I have said is that rather a lot of those who publicly claim the issue is serious don't seem to be taking it overly seriously themselves. There's plenty of virtue signalling but when it comes to actually doing something about it well then economics, aesthetics and all manner of other things are more important in their view. That's not the action of someone who truly believes there's a crisis with CO2.

As with anything, if someone who claims something to be a serious threat isn't heeding their own warning then that destroys credibility there and then. 

Actions speak louder than words.


----------



## rederob (19 July 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> What I have said is that rather a lot of those who publicly claim the issue is serious don't seem to be taking it overly seriously themselves.



Sheer anecdote - no evidence!


Smurf1976 said:


> There's plenty of virtue signalling but when it comes to actually doing something about it well then economics, aesthetics and all manner of other things are more important in their view. That's not the action of someone who truly believes there's a crisis with CO2.



These are the claims of those who do not accept the science.
The key actions are political decisions that set a clear path to CO2 reductions.  Individuals have a small overall impact given that industry per se is responsible for controllable contributions.


Smurf1976 said:


> As with anything, if someone who claims something to be a serious threat isn't heeding their own warning then that destroys credibility there and then.



*No*, that is *NOT *a logical argument.  Think about why!


----------



## SirRumpole (19 July 2019)

rederob said:


> *No*, that is *NOT *a logical argument. Think about why!




You don't believe in setting an example ?


----------



## qldfrog (19 July 2019)

I usually have @rederob hidden as life is too short, but I really think @rederob has lost all credibility:
I saw your "arguments" on CC threads...And attacking SirRumpole or Smurf, seriously?
I am willing to  bet I have done much much more  (even using what I think is a flawn CO2 criteria)  than you have ever done
you see I do not spend my life trolling sites , but I protect this land, am self sufficient in many aspects and generate far more carbon capture thru tree growths (carbon capture not my aim but a side effect) than I expect many do:
I put my money and efforts in nature preservation, not trolling forums or being brainwashed with argument any basic scientific knowledge can discard.
Anyway back to my system thread, my reason here tonight


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 July 2019)

rederob said:


> Sheer anecdote - no evidence!



When you've got the former leader of the Greens campaigning against wind farms that's more than enough for most ordinary people to walk away shaking their heads at the whole thing.

That the location isn't far away from the same spot environmentalists advocated be used for wind energy decades ago, because it has the best resource and that's well known, makes it all the more ridiculous.



rederob said:


> These are the claims of those who do not accept the science.




Can't argue with that although many do claim to accept the science.



rederob said:


> The key actions are political decisions that set a clear path to CO2 reductions.  Individuals have a small overall impact given that industry per se is responsible for controllable contributions.




If the population is making it clear that they're not willing to act then they're unlikely to elect a government which forces them to do so against their wishes. MP's are elected to represent not to control.



rederob said:


> *No*, that is *NOT *a logical argument.  Think about why!




In what way?

Surest way to have ordinary people conclude that something's a load of nonsense is to find out that whoever's preaching isn't heeding their own advice.

Eg the first question regarding anyone telling others how to make a fortune on the stock market is to verify that they are in fact using this system themselves? If not well then that doesn't give them much credibility now does it? If the system's so good then why aren't they using it? Lots of alarm bells ringing there!

A key reason people pay attention to what Warren Buffet has to say is that it's known that he has actually made a lot of money through investing and as such his comments are from real experience. That's several orders of magnitude more credible than some "expert" whose real income comes about not from the market but by charging others to hear them speak and buy their "black box" system.

Same with anything. Walk the talk.

Personally well my understanding is that there likely is a problem with CO2 and I've taken sensible steps to reduce my contribution to it. Even though I'm not convinced it's an actual emergency, I've taken reasonable actions and I sure won't be coming up with silly excuses as to why emissions shouldn't be reduced. Worst case, if all we lose is aesthetics and even then only temporarily, well that seems a pretty lame excuse to me.


----------



## wayneL (20 July 2019)

I think its funny that some don't seem to see the connection between collective personal consumption and industrial output.


----------



## rederob (20 July 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> When you've got the former leader of the Greens campaigning against wind farms that's more than enough for most ordinary people to walk away shaking their heads at the whole thing.



That's like quoting Al Gore instead of a climate scientist - it does not wash!


Smurf1976 said:


> Can't argue with that although many do claim to accept the science.



Those accepting the science cannot be  *virtue signallers.*


Smurf1976 said:


> Surest way to have ordinary people conclude that something's a load of nonsense is to find out that whoever's preaching isn't heeding their own advice.



Repeating something devoid of logic is not at all helpful.
*
*


----------



## rederob (20 July 2019)

wayneL said:


> I think its funny that some don't seem to see the connection between collective personal consumption and industrial output.



Try using facts to back your ideas.


----------



## wayneL (20 July 2019)

rederob said:


> Try using facts to back your ideas.



That is a fact. Economics 101, demand v supply. 

Price signals matter,  but in the case of cc, if people are concerned,  they should be considering the externalities on an individual basis, with a collective effect, rather than relying on agendized politics.


----------



## rederob (20 July 2019)

wayneL said:


> That is a fact. Economics 101, demand v supply.



Developing economies have high energy demand but limited supply options, so your case is fundamentally flawed.


wayneL said:


> Price signals matter, but in the case of cc, if people are concerned, they should be considering the externalities on an individual basis, with a collective effect, rather than relying on agendized politics.



Word salad!
Simple test of power of government to influence CO2 trend related to impact of carbon tax when introduced and then again when lifted.  Individual consumers were - and remain largely - subservient to policy.
Try offering something concrete rather than your usual trifles.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 July 2019)

Climate change is already hitting home in local communities.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07...perty-prices-noosa-climate-emergency/11327474


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 July 2019)

rederob said:


> Simple test of power of government to influence CO2 trend related to impact of carbon tax when introduced and then again when lifted.



You mean the way in which various companies brought forward things which would temporarily reduce emissions and pushed back those which would increase them so as to profit from it?


----------



## rederob (22 July 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> You mean the way in which various companies brought forward things which would temporarily reduce emissions and pushed back those which would increase them so as to profit from it?



No.


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 July 2019)

rederob said:


> That's like quoting Al Gore instead of a climate scientist - it does not wash!




When the subject is politics, Al Gore would seem to be a far more credible source than any scientist.



> Repeating something devoid of logic is not at all helpful.




Indeed it isn't but it's standard practice in politics and has been so for a very long time. All sides do it routinely, environmental ones included. There's nothing new about that and the entire advertising industry relies heavily upon the fact that it works in practice. 

Keep saying it and it becomes accepted as true by a substantial portion of the population. Whether or not it is actually true is completely irrelevant to that.


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 July 2019)

rederob said:


> No.



Then what do you mean?

During the two year carbon tax quite a few temporary things were done which were never going to permanently reduce emissions but which made a profit for all concerned.

Taking coal-fired plant out of service for overhaul or upgrade and running down hydro water storages as the replacement power source was one such example and of itself significant. No permanent reduction and all paid back with higher emissions later but it made money under the circumstances so it was done.


----------



## rederob (22 July 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Then what do you mean?



The ETS was under consideration by Labor prior to November 2011 when the Carbon Tax passed through the Senate.  This graphic shows it a little more clearly:





After Abbott returned to power and repealed the tax, CO2 emissions from electricity generation barely changed.


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 July 2019)

rederob said:


> After Abbott returned to power and repealed the tax, CO2 emissions from electricity generation barely changed.



Emissions didn't go up or down overall greatly that is true, the tax and its subsequent removal didn't meaningfully reduce emissions as per the chart you posted indeed the total went up during the second year of it. Source = the chart you posted.

If you look closely though it clearly does show electricity sector emissions lower during the two years in which it applied and virtually no change from anything else apart from land use which marked the conclusion of a trend commencing many years prior. 

That electricity sector reduction was the lakes being drained, something which commenced "in anger" literally at the stroke of midnight when it came in, and also the gas fields being drained for which we're about to see LNG imported as the replacement.


----------



## Smurf1976 (22 July 2019)

rederob said:


> After Abbott returned to power and repealed the tax, CO2 emissions from electricity generation barely changed.



I don't think anyone would dispute that the whole thing was largely ineffective but, as per your chart, to the extent it had any effect on anything it was with electricity. Still not very effective, but more effective with electricity than with the rest of the economy (largely because tricks could be employed that aren't possible with anything else).

Meanwhile in Bangladesh: https://www.theage.com.au/politics/...l-for-new-power-stations-20190722-p529ls.html


----------



## rederob (23 July 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> Emissions didn't go up or down overall greatly that is true, the tax and its subsequent removal didn't meaningfully reduce emissions as per the chart you posted indeed the total went up during the second year of it. Source = the chart you posted.



Tens of millions of CO2e were not emitted via generation, so the effect of policy was *meaningful.  * Labor's stance on reducing CO2 emissions, first with the threat of an ETS and then with the tax, is evident throughout their period in government, and the Coalition's immediate return reversed the trend from 2013 to date.  The chart is pretty clear on that so I disagree with many of your contentions.


----------



## IFocus (23 July 2019)

rederob said:


> Individual consumers were - and remain largely - subservient to policy.
> .




Yep


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 July 2019)

rederob said:


> After Abbott returned to power and repealed the tax, CO2 emissions from electricity generation barely changed.






> the Coalition's immediate return reversed the trend from 2013 to date




Which one?

From my own perspective, well I remember the day it commenced quite well. The gates were opened at the stroke of midnight to start letting out the water that had been intentionally held back over the preceding period once it was known that the tax was likely. End result - a jump in emissions prior to it, a dip during it, then partly back up once it was over. That's what happened across the hydro industry in most cases.

Plus there was an increase in gas-fired generation, including that from relatively inefficient facilities, which brought forward the inevitable production decline in Victoria in particular. That was always going to happen, it's a finite resource, and it was never going to be sustainable to be burning another billion cubic meters of gas in power stations every few months indeed objections to doing so were first raised in 1971 well before the CO2 issue became a mainstream concern.


----------



## rederob (23 July 2019)

Smurf1976 said:


> From my own perspective, well I remember the day it commenced quite well. The gates were opened at the stroke of midnight to start letting out the water that had been intentionally held back over the preceding period once it was known that the tax was likely. End result - a jump in emissions prior to it, a dip during it, then partly back up once it was over. That's what happened across the hydro industry in most cases.



Labor reversed a long term trend, and while what you say is true, it was a blip on the radar over the 15 years posted at #1732.
The other undeniable trend was the turnaround under Coalition policies.
The tragedy was that there was a NEM policy vacuum as a result of diametrically opposed policies in that period, leading to no agreement on the best way forward.  And six years on we are none the wiser.


----------



## sptrawler (23 July 2019)

The biggest tragedy is the waste of gas. IMO


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 July 2019)

rederob said:


> The tragedy was that there was a NEM policy vacuum as a result of diametrically opposed policies



One thing I think everyone would agree on is that policy on this subject in Australia has been a disaster no matter what objective is considered as being the priority.

If for example we had pursued a policy of addressing CO2 then we could still have had lower market prices than the prices we actually have today, which have increased dramatically with minimal gain to the environment.

If alternatively we had pursued a policy of lowest cost then we could still have achieved lower emissions than we actually have today, simply by operating generating plant optimally and avoiding the doing of things which make no sense either economically or environmentally.

If we had pursued a policy of maximum supply reliability then that also could have still achieved lower costs and emissions than we actually have today. It doesn't cost a fortune to retain a facility that's already built, it's not as though these power stations are sitting on valuable real estate such that there's something to actually be gained from demolition.

So what we've managed to achieve is the worst of all aspects really. No matter which of the three aspects were considered as the priority, with a proper approach the other two could also have been done better than they actually are being done today.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 July 2019)

Nothing like recent global warming in historical data.

Previous climate changes have been localised, this one is global say scientists.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07...this-over-past-2000-years-scientists/11345022


----------



## Knobby22 (27 July 2019)

Interesting that temperature records in Belgium and Europe generally are being broken by 2 degrees. 
Normally records are broken by say 0.2degrees.


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 July 2019)

Knobby22 said:


> Interesting that temperature records in Belgium and Europe generally are being broken by 2 degrees.
> Normally records are broken by say 0.2degrees.



If you're going to do something then may as well do it properly. 

But yeah, the trend here is rather serious.


----------



## qldfrog (27 July 2019)

Sure it is hot but yesterday,it was stated on thatthe news..i assume abc that Belgium did not surpassed its 2002 record

And as far as i see France did not really matched its 1976 heat wave seen in a state wide fashion but yes some local records were broken
No one was shouting global warming in 1976 when i was there, but might have been.
.as long as co2 is not blamed..i could agree..
With the Sahara expanding, Timbuktu now in a desert, and african lakes drying not a surprise to see side effects but still global warming due to co2 or c
aka climate change i agree due to human overpopulation
Anyway lets forget the true issues and blame farting cows


----------



## rederob (27 July 2019)

qldfrog said:


> And as far as i see France did not really matched its 1976 heat wave seen in a state wide fashion but yes some local records were broken
> No one was shouting global warming in 1976 when i was there, but might have been.
> .as long as co2 is not blamed..i could agree.



You remain as clueless as ever on this subject.
It's not just the daily records being broken, it's the monthly records, which better reflect "climate", as distinct from "weather" events which can be isolated "one-offs".


qldfrog said:


> aka climate change i agree due to human overpopulation



For over two centuries one third of the global population was responsible for a cumulative 10% or so of GHG emissions.  
So overpopulation is not a cause, but *industrialisation *is.


----------



## basilio (28 July 2019)

This very short video from Harrison Ford looks at the  big picture of dealing with CC  and highlights how a critical element of the solution is protecting and enhancing our natural ecosystems.


----------



## basilio (28 July 2019)

So how serious is Global Heating today ? 
A refresher on the  second European heat wave to hit the continent in a month, the fires across teh Artci and the consequences on the Greenland ice cap ( and our ocean levels)

*Europe hit by heatwave and hailstorms as experts warn Greenland ice could melt*

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-27/europe-hit-by-heatwave-and-hailstorms/11352766


----------



## basilio (30 July 2019)

Great Thunberg has taken a gap year to continue her CC activism.  She will be presenting at UN Climate Summits in the US and Chile.

Trouble is "*How will she get here *?" She won't fly and cruise ships have a huge carbon footprint so they are out as well. Swim ? Paddle a canoe?

*Nah.  She will be hitching a ride on a 60 foot racing yacht fitted with solar panels and underwater turbine  to generate power... . cool..*

Will she be trying to convince  Donald Trump of the error of his ways ?

Nuh. To quote
“I have nothing to say to him. He obviously doesn’t listen to the science and the scientists. So why should I, a child with no proper education, be able to convince him?”
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...o-sail-across-atlantic-for-un-climate-summits


----------



## basilio (30 July 2019)

How serious is Global Warming ? Perhaps this analysis comes close to the truth.
*                      Deep Adaptation*
                       This blog post includes the following:



An opportunity to learn about and understand the term “Deep Adaptation”.  The term comes from the paper Deep Adaptation: A Map for Navigating Climate Tragedy by Jem Bendell, which has greatly changed the landscape of what we are doing in the Scientists’ Warning Initiative. An excerpt from the abstract of this paper follows; however, the reader is urged to take the time to read  the full content of the paper by clicking the link.
https://www.scientistswarning.org/deep-adaptation-a-map-for-navigating-climate-tragedy/
https://www.lifeworth.com/deepadaptation.pdf


----------



## qldfrog (30 July 2019)

https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/1-indias-2019-thermal-coal-074541454.html
But that is ok, per inhabitant, they consume less than us


----------



## basilio (2 August 2019)

Andrew Bolt is back in business.  He has decided Greta Thunburg is too dangerous to be allowed out  from where she belongs.

She gave him a neat little backhand return.

 Greta Thunberg *✔*  @GretaThunberg 

I am* indeed ”deeply disturbed”* about the fact that these hate and conspiracy campaigns are allowed to go on and on and on just because we children communicate and act on the science. Where are the adults?






 

 105K 
 6:39 PM - Aug 1, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy


26.2K people are talking about this


----------



## basilio (2 August 2019)

Greta Thunberg *✔*  @GretaThunberg 

This is the question that needs to be repeated to all people in power every single day. Over and over again.#UniteBehindTheScience https://twitter.com/GretaThunberg/status/1154424835088572417 …

 Greta Thunberg *✔*  @GretaThunberg 

”What I would like to ask all of those who question our so called ‘opinions’, or think that we are extreme, is:
Do you have a different budget for at least a reasonable chance of staying below a 1,5° of warming? Is there another, secret Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change?”




 

 8,530 
 6:39 PM - Aug 1, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy


2,582 people are talking about this


----------



## basilio (2 August 2019)

And why is this  issue so critical ? This is just one of the many cities around the  world and in Australia that is facing critical water shortages.


*In Zimbabwe, the water taps run dry and worsen ‘a nightmare’*

00:00 / 00:00


More than half of the 4.5 million residents of Harare’s greater metropolitan area now have running water only once a week.
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/dateline/in-zimbabwe-the-water-taps-run-dry-and-worsen-a-nightmare


----------



## basilio (2 August 2019)

It is interesting to reflect on Andrew Bolts repeated climate change denialism and efforts to denigrate Greta Thunberg. In particular he attempts to say she is being used  and manipulated by dark forces. 

I came across this post from Greta on her Facebook page in Feb this year. It puts the record straight. Greta Thunberg is her own woman.

_*Greta Thunberg*
2 February · 
Recently I’ve seen many rumors circulating about me and enormous amounts of hate. This is no surprise to me. I know that since most people are not aware of the full meaning of the climate crisis (which is understandable since it has never been treated as a crisis) a school strike for the climate would seem very strange to people in general.
So let me make some things clear about my school strike.

 In may 2018 I was one of the winners in a writing competition about the environment held by Svenska Dagbladet, a Swedish newspaper. I got my article published and some people contacted me, among others was Bo Thorén from Fossil Free Dalsland. He had some kind of group with people, especially youth, who wanted to do something about the climate crisis.
I had a few phone meetings with other activists. The purpose was to come up with ideas of new projects that would bring attention to the climate crisis. Bo had a few ideas of things we could do. Everything from marches to a loose idea of some kind of a school strike (that school children would do something on the schoolyards or in the classrooms). That idea was inspired by the Parkland Students, who had refused to go to school after the school shootings.
I liked the idea of a school strike. So I developed that idea and tried to get the other young people to join me, but no one was really interested. They thought that a Swedish version of the Zero Hour march was going to have a bigger impact. So I went on planning the school strike all by myself and after that I didn’t participate in any more meetings.

 When I told my parents about my plans they weren’t very fond of it. They did not support the idea of school striking and they said that if I were to do this I would have to do it completely by myself and with no support from them.
On the 20 of august I sat down outside the Swedish Parliament. I handed out fliers with a long list of facts about the climate crisis and explanations on why I was striking. The first thing I did was to post on Twitter and Instagram what I was doing and it soon went viral. Then journalists and newspapers started to come. A Swedish entrepreneur and business man active in the climate movement, Ingmar Rentzhog, was among the first to arrive. He spoke with me and took pictures that he posted on Facebook. That was the first time I had ever met or spoken with him. I had not communicated or encountered with him ever before.

 Many people love to spread rumors saying that I have people ”behind me” or that I’m being ”paid” or ”used” to do what I’m doing. But there is no one ”behind” me except for myself. My parents were as far from climate activists as possible before I made them aware of the situation.
I am not part of any organization. I sometimes support and cooperate with several NGOs that work with the climate and environment. But I am absolutely independent and I only represent myself. And I do what I do completely for free, I have not received any money or any promise of future payments in any form at all. And nor has anyone linked to me or my family done so.
And of course it will stay this way. I have not met one single climate activist who is fighting for the climate for money. That idea is completely absurd.
Furthermore I only travel with permission from my school and my parents pay for tickets and accommodations.

 My family has written a book together about our family and how me and my sister Beata have influenced my parents way of thinking and seeing the world, especially when it comes to the climate. And about our diagnoses.
That book was due to be released in May. But since there was a major disagreement with the book company, we ended up changing to a new publisher and so the book was released in august instead.
Before the book was released my parents made it clear that their possible profits from the book ”Scener ur hjärtat” will be going to 8 different charities working with environment, children with diagnoses and animal rights.

 And yes, I write my own speeches. But since I know that what I say is going to reach many, many people I often ask for input. I also have a few scientists that I frequently ask for help on how to express certain complicated matters. I want everything to be absolutely correct so that I don’t spread incorrect facts, or things that can be misunderstood.

 Some people mock me for my diagnosis. But Asperger is not a disease, it’s a gift. People also say that since I have Asperger I couldn’t possibly have put myself in this position. But that’s exactly why I did this. Because if I would have been ”normal” and social I would have organized myself in an organisation, or started an organisation by myself. But since I am not that good at socializing I did this instead. I was so frustrated that nothing was being done about the climate crisis and I felt like I had to do something, anything. And sometimes NOT doing things - like just sitting down outside the parliament - speaks much louder than doing things. Just like a whisper sometimes is louder than shouting.

 Also there is one complaint that I ”sound and write like an adult”. And to that I can only say; don’t you think that a 16-year old can speak for herself? There’s also some people who say that I oversimplify things. For example when I say that "the climate crisis is a black and white issue”, ”we need to stop the emissions of greenhouse gases” and ”I want you to panic”. But that I only say because it’s true. Yes, the climate crisis is the most complex issue that we have ever faced and it’s going to take everything from our part to ”stop it”. But the solution is black and white; we need to stop the emissions of greenhouse gases.
Because either we limit the warming to 1,5 degrees C over pre industrial levels, or we don’t. Either we reach a tipping point where we start a chain reaction with events way beyond human control, or we don’t. Either we go on as a civilization, or we don’t. There are no gray areas when it comes to survival.
And when I say that I want you to panic I mean that we need to treat the crisis as a crisis. When your house is on fire you don’t sit down and talk about how nice you can rebuild it once you put out the fire. If your house is on fire you run outside and make sure that everyone is out while you call the fire department. That requires some level of panic.

 There is one other argument that I can’t do anything about. And that is the fact that I’m ”just a child and we shouldn’t be listening to children.” But that is easily fixed - just start to listen to the rock solid science instead. Because if everyone listened to the scientists and the facts that I constantly refer to - then no one would have to listen to me or any of the other hundreds of thousands of school children on strike for the climate across the world. Then we could all go back to school.
I am just a messenger, and yet I get all this hate. I am not saying anything new, I am just saying what scientists have repeatedly said for decades. And I agree with you, I’m too young to do this. We children shouldn’t have to do this. But since almost no one is doing anything, and our very future is at risk, we feel like we have to continue.


And if you have any other concern or doubt about me, then you can listen to my TED talk ( https://www.ted.com/…/greta_thunberg_the_disarming_…/up-next ), in which I talk about how my interest for the climate and environment began. 

 And thank you everyone for you kind support! It brings me hope.
/Greta
Ps I was briefly a youth advisor for the board of the non profit foundation “We don’t have time”. It turns out they used my name as part of another branch of their organisation that is a start up business. They have admitted clearly that they did so without the knowledge of me or my family. I no longer have any connection to “We don’t have time”. Nor has anyone in my family. They have deeply apologised and I have accepted their apology._


----------



## basilio (1 December 2020)

Came across this analysis of the impact of rising sea levels in Florida on insurance and housing.

Obviously 10's of  millions of properties around the world will be affected as sea levels rise but it is always instructive to see the consequences on investment markets.









						How climate change could spark the next home mortgage disaster
					

Taxpayers are backing more than a trillion dollars in home mortgages, but the agencies buying them are neglecting to consider climate risks.




					www.politico.com


----------



## basilio (5 December 2020)

Temperatures across Australia  are still climbing to new records as a consequence of global heating.
Now the weather reporters on the ABC are adding some  CC explanations for the increased temps. Exlains exactly why we are cooking so nicely..

All well and good.  Just wondering however when the first calls of "politicization of weather reporting"  echo from the bowels of Bolt and News Ltd.









						A change in the weather: new demand for TV presenters to include climate in forecasts
					

The ABC’s Graham Creed says new climate change research could ‘fill a big gap’ in public understanding




					www.theguardian.com


----------



## Joules MM1 (7 January 2021)

The Trump administration is burying renewable-energy studies
					

“It just goes into a black hole,” said a Department of Energy researcher.




					grist.org
				




*‘It just goes into a black hole’*
The Trump administration is burying dozens of studies detailing the promise of renewable energy, impeding a transition away from fossil fuels

...more science, please !!


----------



## Investoradam (10 January 2021)

basilio said:


> This very short video from Harrison Ford looks at the  big picture of dealing with CC  and highlights how a critical element of the solution is protecting and enhancing our natural ecosystems.




Afterwards he will get in his private jet and fly off to his private island where he will spend his time on his boat!
Like the usual hypocrites


----------



## wayneL (10 January 2021)

Investoradam said:


> Afterwards he will get in his private jet and fly off to his private island where he will spend his time on his boat!
> Like the usual hypocrites



Yeahbut.... They're getting the message out there.

If we are all messangers, we too can have 100x average carbon footprint lifestyle


----------



## basilio (11 January 2021)

Investoradam said:


> Afterwards he will get in his private jet and fly off to his private island where he will spend his time on his boat!
> Like the usual hypocrites




Really ?  Are you  Just another climate denial troll investordam  trying to win  cheap points making totally fatuous comments ?

Just to get to the real point. Do you think CC is a very real problem and that if we want to see any sort of functioning society in the next 30 years we *must take huge steps to decarbonise our economies and reduce Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere ? *


----------



## basilio (20 April 2021)

Just re-read  the post  from Greta Thunberg in 2018.  Made overwhelming sense in the context of how CC is affecting Australia.

_Also there is one complaint that I ”sound and write like an adult”. And to that I can only say; don’t you think that a 16-year old can speak for herself? There’s also some people who say that I oversimplify things. For example when I say that "the climate crisis is a black and white issue”, ”we need to stop the emissions of greenhouse gases” and ”I want you to panic”. But that I only say because it’s true. Yes, the climate crisis is the most complex issue that we have ever faced and it’s going to take everything from our part to ”stop it”. But the solution is black and white; we need to stop the emissions of greenhouse gases.

Because either we limit the warming to 1,5 degrees C over pre industrial levels, or we don’t. Either we reach a tipping point where we start a chain reaction with events way beyond human control, or we don’t. Either we go on as a civilization, or we don’t. There are no gray areas when it comes to survival._

The ADF has always been  commissioned with preparing for future scenarios.  The unfolding situation of a hotter Australia and the consequences  re.  widespread bushfires was always on  the list. However ADF researchers were prohibited to use the world climate change in their analysis. It was politically unacceptable.

They are now coming to terms with the clear impact of increasing temperatures and the essential role the ADF will play in responding to future  extreme bushfire threats.









						'Don't call it climate change': Former defence official says she was under political pressure to downplay climate concerns
					

A former Australian defence official speaks out about the political pressure she says she faced when analysing climate threats for the Department of Defence.




					www.abc.net.au
				




Key points:​
Former defence official Cheryl Durrant says politics got in the way of effectively preparing for climate change
Former defence chief Chris Barrie says the Black Summer fires exposed weaknesses in responding to extreme climate-related events
Social researcher Rebecca Huntley says federal leadership has an enormous influence in shaping the community's perception of a complex issue like climate change


----------



## basilio (20 April 2021)

Consequences of rise in flooding events in Australia.









						Flood insurance would have cost Joe $13,000. Now his dream home has been ruined
					

More than 22,000 insurance claims have been lodged so far, but many homeowners are facing big out-of-pocket bills because they didn't take out flood cover.




					www.abc.net.au
				





More than 22,000 claims have been lodged for flood damage so far
Due to high premiums, many people have opted out of flood insurance 
Premiums have increased 178 per cent in cyclone and flood-prone areas in the past decade


----------



## rederob (30 December 2021)

In a *La Niña*  year we still see 2021 in the top ten hottest years ever recorded:






Not looking good for when the reversal takes place,


----------



## noirua (28 June 2022)

LISTEN TO THESE PODCASTS​








						Is the global climate emergency making South Asia unlivable?
					

Recurrent catastrophic weather events in the region underscore the need for longer-term solutions to climate change.




					www.aljazeera.com


----------

