Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

What do you think of global warming?

  • There is no reliable evidence that indicates global warming (GW)

    Votes: 8 5.2%

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

    Votes: 12 7.8%

  • Ditto - but we should act to reduce greenhouse gas effects anyway

    Votes: 46 30.1%

  • There is GW, the manmade contribution is PROVEN (brd), and the matter is not urgent

    Votes: 6 3.9%

  • Ditto but corrective global action is a matter of urgency

    Votes: 79 51.6%

  • Other (plus reasons)

    Votes: 7 4.6%
  • Total voters
    153
Jump to new
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?
Click to expand...

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.

With a goal of achieving sustainability within a generation, the Foundation collaborates with scientists, business and industry, academia, government and non-governmental organizations. We seek the best research to provide innovative solutions that will help build a clean, competitive economy that does not threaten the natural services that support all life.

An independent charity, the Foundation does not accept government grants and is supported with the help of some 40,000 individual supporters across Canada and around the world.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
AGW? what is this? a new religious branch of the GW religion? seriously...? what does the 'A' stand for?
 
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.
 
metric said:
AGW? what is this? a new religious branch of the GW religion? seriously...? what does the 'A' stand for?
Click to expand...
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: .
Click to expand...

an·thro·po·gen·ic
adj. Of or relating to anthropogenesis. Caused by humans: anthropogenic degradation of the environment.
Click to expand...
 
as a zoologist or scientist, suzuki makes a fine specimen of a 60 something fitness guru. ever seen him without his shirt on?
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.

The week-long conference, which runs from Monday March 31st to Friday April 4th, will focus on discussions about the kind of emission reduction targets developed countries will take on during the second phase of the Kyoto Protocol starting in 2012.

The Bangkok climate talks mark the first round of negotiations since the Bali conference last year. The talks are crucial to the development of a new post-2012 climate agreement, which will be finalized at the UN climate change conference in Copenhagen in 2009.
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/climate_change/
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/files/climate/10_ways_to_stop_global_warming_web.pdf
Click to expand...

2020 said:
ever seen him without his shirt on?
Click to expand...
metric ... artists impression ok ..
 

Attachments

  • suzuki4.jpg
    suzuki4.jpg
    124.3 KB · Views: 91
  • suzuki3.jpg
    suzuki3.jpg
    18.8 KB · Views: 94
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. :2twocents
(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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, Wayne. Remarks by yourself and The Ferret have provided me, at least, with much amusement.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

not sure I'm with you smurf.
you mean like the lessons of queenstown?
PS thanks for links to dam storages.
 
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.
 
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 re:banghead:mained 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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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 .

I very much hope we don’t HAVE a problem. But I think when you look at the balance of evidence, we DO. So when you look at those scenarios, and where we are travelling in relation to that warming , where it actually gets scary is not with the warming effects, it's with the severe climate effects are going to be of that warming.

And that's when we had briefings - from major scientists and others - at 10 Downing St, THAT's when it gets very frightening. That's when scientists actually become ashen faced. , and say "well, I can't really say what is really gonna happen with THAT amount of carbon in the atmosphere, and THAT amount of warming, and therefore what's gonna happen with respect to severe weather.

THat's when this issue is not actually about science.

It's about security
It's about economic security
It's about our physical security
in relation to the human population movements that may well occur IF the future predictions prove even half right.
Click to expand...
..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.
Click to expand...
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
Click to expand...
 
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.
 

Similar threads

2020hindsight
  • Poll
Poll on Action on Global Warming
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
11K
2020hindsight
2020hindsight
Top