Global Cooling????

Wayne, before you give me a hard time about words like "unequivocal" - you'll see he defines 95% confidence limits etc - 95% confidence level is what engineers use to design bridges etc - albeit with a few extra factors thrown in.

Moving on - here's George Pell's attitude... (the first from May 2006, then from a week ago, Oct 2007 - where he contradicts the late Pope for instance - as well as all other religious leaders. - see photo, I think he's been fishing again )

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2006/05/05/1631670.htm

Pell angers Muslims, environmentalists
Climate change, May 2006

Cardinal Pell's speech also described concerns about global warming as "hysteric and extreme".

He says these worries are a symptom of pagan emptiness.

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.

Senator Christine Milne says the Cardinal's comments are unhelpful and insulting.

"I think it's unfortunate that Cardinal Pell refers to a pagan emptiness and western fears about global warming as being hysteric and extreme," she said.

"Cardinal Pell must surely be aware of the late Pope John Paul's comments about the need for ecological conversion.

"He must also be aware that there's a very strong view in the Catholic faith across the world that we need to recognise that we are stewards of God's earth and therefore have a responsibility to maintain it in its pristine form."

Click to expand...

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2007/s2050357.htm
Religious leaders urge Govt to act on climate change
PM - Wednesday, 3 October , 2007 18:14:00
Reporter: Simon Santow
MARK COLVIN: Some of Australia's senior religious leaders are calling on politicians to take the issue of climate change more seriously.

Representatives of the Muslim, Christian, Hindu and Jewish faiths are among those who've signed on to a declaration calling for stronger and speedier action on the issue.They've appealed to the Federal Government to commit itself to deep cuts in greenhouse gas emissions, and to ensure all new electricity generation is from the 'renewables' sector.

But the most senior member of the country's largest religion, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Sydney, George Pell, isn't going along with the interfaith message.

Simon Santow reports.

SIMON SANTOW: George Pell is a climate change skeptic.

He says he's studied the scientific evidence and found that there's no unanimity among the experts - particularly over what role humans have played in contributing to rising temperatures across the globe.

GEORGE PELL: Given we've only been a little over 200 years here in Australia, it is somewhat difficult to be quite clear about the environmental patterns that were here thousands of years before we came.

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.

SIMON SANTOW: More than a dozen representatives from religions as diverse as evangelical Christianity to Hinduism and Buddhism don't mind using a press release to send a very different message about how seriously they take climate change.

They're demanding the Federal Government consider climate change a moral issue and show more leadership than they have up until now.

The Anglican Bishop of Canberra and Goulburn is George Browning.

GEORGE BROWNING: The Government's action is very inadequate and disappointing, but that's not surprising, because that's been their position over such a long period of time, they've been so reluctant even to admit that there is such a thing as climate change, let alone recognize that the human footprint has contributed towards it, they've only lately come that that position, and they are still only or setting aspirational targets, which is simply not good enough.

We actually do have to have real targets, and we have a real price on carbon.

SIMON SANTOW: George Pell says he supports investigating sources of 'clean' power, including wind as well as nuclear.

But he's adamant there's no need to rush into making significant changes.

GEORGE PELL: I think we need to go prudently and slowly, and not be driven by gusts of enthusiasm or particular political moves.

SIMON SANTOW: The latest research says that if we go too slowly, the change will have happened and we can't do anything about it.

GEORGE PELL: There are many latest pieces of research; I myself think talking to a scientist just the other night, he says that the increases in carbon dioxide are following the changes in temperature rather than causing it.

SIMON SANTOW: And in the lead up to the Federal Election, he's prepared to challenge the opinion polling which puts climate change and the environment right up the top of the list of voter concerns.

GEORGE PELL: It's much less important than the faith of the five or ten or fifteen per cent of the poorest Australians; it's much less important than the problem of marriage breakdown, it's much less important than the problem of abortion.

GEORGE BROWNING: The Cardinal, for whatever reason, put private morality as number one, and private morality is important, but the public agenda, the social agenda, the contribution that the world community makes to its common welfare is essentially part of the Christian agenda, this is our core business.

MARK COLVIN: The Anglican Bishop of Canberra and Goulburn, George Browning, speaking to Simon Santow

Click to expand...

For once I agree with Tony Abbott.. (at least in Pell's case - not in the case of all the other religious leaders)

Representatives of the Muslim, Christian, Hindu and Jewish faiths are among those who've signed on to a declaration calling for stronger and speedier action on the issue - (but not Mr Pell)

Click to expand...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/12/2057476.htm

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.

Click to expand...

LOL - Am I REALLY reading this !! omg.

It's more a case of increasing temperatures and Australia getting hotter and hotter. Personally though, I think it's just a phase and very soon, over the next few years, a cold "Global Cooling" will arrive and the next ice age will begin.

noirua said:

It's more a case of increasing temperatures and Australia getting hotter and hotter. Personally though, I think it's just a phase and very soon, over the next few years, a cold "Global Cooling" will arrive and the next ice age will begin.

Click to expand...

thanks for putting my mind at ease noi, lol
no doubt 95% confident?

PS you're gonna have to be a bit more specific about your definition of "next few years"

PS I've already posted IPCC's opinion btw - here's an idea of the depth of their research..
http://www.ipcc.ch/

Fact is carbon dioxide can not be linked to the main cause of global warming. heaps of scientists from the IPCC dont actually think that carbon dioxide is the main culprit. Carbon dioxide plays a role but the % of total heat capture co2 can equate for is tiny. I still think we should be limiting our carbon output, fact is new technology will be renewable and create alot more jobs.

Go watch a doco called "the great global warming swindle". The earth has been much hotter and had alot more carbon in the atmosphere than it does today. 20-30 mill years ago it was above 3000 ppm.

The much more likely causes for warming are
1. the Sun; been the biggest factor to global weather how can anyone rule out solar activity on yearly, decade and hundred thousands year scales it has many cyclical variables.

2. natural cycles and feedback systems.

3. the earths mantle; example:look at yellowstone its geothermal hotspot has moved hundreds of kms in the last few thousand years. whats to say a hot spot may have moved from under land to under water where its heat would actually heat the ocean causing increaed gobal warming.

There are so many discrepancies with the co2 main cause arguement.
1. the fact that oceans are warming as much if not more than the atmosphere: the problem here is that water is much denser than air and there more of it. If you have a glass half full of water and air and heat the air +10 degrees it will take the water much longer to get to the +10 to be equal to the air temp. The co2 argument says the atmosphere is heating the oceans which is just not possible over the ten's of years time scale.

I could go on for ages but there is so much evidence from ice cores etc for millions of years that shows co2 levels trail temperature rises and therefore are more likely a product of increased temp than the cause.

heres a graph.
1. solar radience vs temp also showing co2

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/13/2058675.htm

US stands firm on climate policy despite Gore's success
Posted 1 hour 28 minutes ago
Updated 1 hour 27 minutes ago

Mr Gore says he is deeply honoured to receive the award and will continue to campaign for global awareness. (File photo) (Reuters: Chip East )

The Bush administration says it will not change its policy on climate change, despite the awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to former US Vice President Al Gore.

The producer of the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth won the prize jointly with the members of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Chief executive of Greenpeace Australia-Pacific, Steve Shallhorn, says the award shows climate change politics is now firmly entrenched in the mainstream.

"I think that as a result of Al Gore's campaigning, any political party in any industrialised country that seeks credibility in the eyes of the electorate has to have a vision for real climate change solutions," he said.

"Make the switch from coal and fossil fuels to clean energy. I think Al Gore has made an enormous contribution."

Mr Shallhorn says both Al Gore and the IPCC have made enormous contributions to the climate change cause.

"The IPCC has become the gold standard on scientific opinion as to the effects of climate change and how we need to move away from fossil fuels in favour of renewable energy," he said.

Since receiving the world famous gong, Mr Gore says he is deeply honoured to receive the award and will continue to campaign for global awareness.

"I will go to Oslo and I will accept this award on behalf of all of those who have been working so long and so hard to try and get the message out about this planetary emergency," he said.
- BBC/ABC

Click to expand...

ok, there's no similarity between Al Gore (2007) and Mother Teresa (1979) - not sure there's much similarity between either of em and George Pell for that matter -

and sureAl Gore may have a big house -
but in the global scheme of things -
and from a global perspetive -
getting the message across -
he's doing a brilliant job.

- even if his house is brilliantly lit (as some pedant wants to fault him on - probably with twice as many lights on as Gore)
he's doing a brilliant job (imo)

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/

2007 - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Albert Arnold (Al) Gore Jr.
2006 - Muhammad Yunus, Grameen Bank
2005 - International Atomic Energy Agency, Mohamed ElBaradei
2004 - Wangari Maathai
2003 - Shirin Ebadi
2002 - Jimmy Carter
2001 - United Nations, Kofi Annan
2000 - Kim Dae-jung
1999 - Médecins Sans Frontières
1998 - John Hume, David Trimble
1997 - International Campaign to Ban Landmines, Jody Williams
1996 - Carlos Filipe Ximenes Belo, José Ramos-Horta
1995 - Joseph Rotblat, Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs
1994 - Yasser Arafat, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin
1993 - Nelson Mandela, F.W. de Klerk
1992 - Rigoberta Menchú Tum
1991 - Aung San Suu Kyi
1990 - Mikhail Gorbachev
1989 - The 14th Dalai Lama
1988 - United Nations Peacekeeping Forces
1987 - Oscar Arias Sánchez
1986 - Elie Wiesel
1985 - International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War
1984 - Desmond Tutu
1983 - Lech Walesa
1982 - Alva Myrdal, Alfonso García Robles
1981 - Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
1980 - Adolfo Pérez Esquivel
1979 - Mother Teresa
1978 - Anwar al-Sadat, Menachem Begin
1977 - Amnesty International

Click to expand...

KIWIKARLOS said:

Fact is carbon dioxide can not be linked to the main cause of global warming. heaps of scientists from the IPCC dont actually think that carbon dioxide is the main culprit. ..

I still think we should be limiting our carbon output, fact is new technology will be renewable and create alot more jobs.

Go watch a doco called "the great global warming swindle"....

Click to expand...

Kiwi
there's a thread on the great swindle (by Durkin , UK Channel 4 - very selective, and hopelessly biased) - here's what I posted after the ABC actually ripped that show apart.
He admitted that he amended NASA graphs etc etc - seriously err ... unscientific!
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=179638&highlight=durkin#post179638

Fact is, changes are happening at previously unheard of rates - and

at the end of the day - I agree with you, viz -

I still think we should be limiting our carbon output

Click to expand...

noirua said:

It's more a case of increasing temperatures and Australia getting hotter and hotter. Personally though, I think it's just a phase and very soon, over the next few years, a cold "Global Cooling" will arrive and the next ice age will begin.

Click to expand...

Any basis for this view?

Climate change advice from the IPCC is very much like road safety advice from Ford and nutrition advice from McDonalds. Lots of experts employed and they know what the truth is.

But in all of those cases there is a strong element of bias since in a worst case telling the truth could put the organisation completely out of business. Let's face it, the safest car is a bus and the best food doesn't come in a wrapper.

The only rational advice Ford and McDonalds could give in order to maximise consumer safety would be to avoid their products wherever possible. Travel by public transport and cook your own food. Obviously they're not going to say that or they'll be out of business.

Same with the IPCC - they can't possibly say anything other than that climate change is a real and urgent threat otherwise they'll be out of business. No government is going to fund something that doesn't seem at least moderately serious or urgent.

Personally, I do think climate change is real although I don't believe that measurements are being done in a proper manner - the impact of direct heat addition to the atmosphere is surely quite substantial but seems to be completely ignored. Given that it is something that can be reversed, it's not in the same category of seriousness that "greenhouse" type warming is. Factor that in and I'd expect to find that climate change is real but it's not happening due to gas emissions as rapidly as some believe.

Another issue I have with the whole debate is that I have NEVER seen any climate campaigner acknowledge the depletion of oil and gas. Plenty of experts in both fields (though the public is largely ignorant of the latter) and both generally share a common concern that we can't continue to rely on fossil fuels. But those campaigning on the basis of climate change always seem to ignore the probabiltiy that oil-related CO2 emissions will never rise significantly from present levels and are set to permanently decline. Gas will rise for a while but then that too declines and in both cases by 2050 we've got emissions well below present levels and by 2100 at levels well below even the most drastic cuts proposed by the climate campaigners. Factor that in and climate change remains a serious issue, but not quite as drastic as some claim.

We're more likely to see green men flying about on the backs of pigs than we are to see the growth in oil use that climate models assume as part of the basis for their dire preditions.

So what are those banging on about anthropomorphic GW actually doing about it?

Though I'm a bit skeptical, I'm actually doing far more than anyone I know, but for slightly different reasons. I agree cutting CO2 is a great idea, but my main concern is POLLUTION & CONSERVATION. Far more pressing concerns... to the point that in the context of the materialistic society we live in, people think we're broke.

Much smaller house, car etc than we can afford, put a jumper on instead of heating (within reason), ride pushbikes for all local trips including grocery shopping, plus a host of other measures

If it is such a concern, why is everybody still buying SUVs, building enormous energy hungry houses etc.

NOBODY IS TAKING THIS SERIOUSLY, INCLUDING AL GORE!

You have to lead by example, but the odd bohemian living a quiet life in a country town has no influence. The "names" have to do it so the sheeple will follow. When fat egotists like AG don't practice what they preach, nobody else will either.

If anthropomorphic GW is real, then STFU, join people like me & Mrs. and DO SOMETHING; and to hell with keeping up with the stupid Jones'. In fact even if it isn't, do it anyway for the other reasons I've stated.

wayneL said:

So what are those banging on about anthropomorphic GW actually doing about it?

Though I'm a bit skeptical, I'm actually doing far more than anyone I know, but for slightly different reasons. I agree cutting CO2 is a great idea, but my main concern is POLLUTION & CONSERVATION. Far more pressing concerns... to the point that in the context of the materialistic society we live in, people think we're broke.

Much smaller house, car etc than we can afford, put a jumper on instead of heating (within reason), ride pushbikes for all local trips including grocery shopping, plus a host of other measures

If it is such a concern, why is everybody still buying SUVs, building enormous energy hungry houses etc.

NOBODY IS TAKING THIS SERIOUSLY, INCLUDING AL GORE!

You have to lead by example, but the odd bohemian living a quiet life in a country town has no influence. The "names" have to do it so the sheeple will follow. When fat egotists like AG don't practice what they preach, nobody else will either.

If anthropomorphic GW is real, then STFU, join people like me & Mrs. and DO SOMETHING; and to hell with keeping up with the stupid Jones'. In fact even if it isn't, do it anyway for the other reasons I've stated.

Click to expand...

Agree completely.
A couple I know who vehemently bang on about how we are destroying the planet have just spent the last five months flying all around the world. Now that they are home they will resume their frequent flying all around Australia.
This is not for work - they are retired - they are choosing to do it.
Well, fine, but just don't tell everyone how concerned they are!

well I just wish we all
a) did more, and
b) did not deride Gore's efforts.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=211855&highlight=gores#post211855

PS Wayne
I don't think STFU is appropriate attitude ( though I could care less about the swearing)
I think TTSU is better
- turn the (Al Gore) speakers up

After all - even Johnny Howard seems to be picking up on the beat
only took him 10.5 years

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

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

Click to expand...

There are other parts of course - but this one should be enough to show you how "scientific" this Durkins bloke is (and honest for that matter)

ok next one is pretty relevant as well
this one introduces the Australian panel .
Great Global Warming Swindle ABC Debates Part 4/9

Prof David Koroly (Uni of Melb) allegedly has links to IPCC
Prof Bob Carter (James Cook Uni) - probably doesn't

Julia said:

Agree completely.
A couple I know who vehemently bang on about how we are destroying the planet have just spent the last five months flying all around the world. Now that they are home they will resume their frequent flying all around Australia.
This is not for work - they are retired - they are choosing to do it.
Well, fine, but just don't tell everyone how concerned they are!

Click to expand...

I'll bring another big name (in the Australian context) environmentalist into it. Bob Brown.

Bob's entire strategy for Tasmania since the early 1980's has been based upon the notion of shutting down or not building any industry that doesn't involve bringing hundreds of thousands or, in his words, "millions" of tourists to the state each year by plane and then having them spend their days driving around looking at the scenery.

That's it. That's Bob's solution. And it's totally unsustainable once either peak oil or carbon constraints hit.

Bob's good at conservation of on-ground resources for sure. Full credit (I seriously do mean that) to him for his efforts. But he's done it at the expense of plundering what's underground and pumping the wastes into the air. Green and good for conservation maybe but not in the slightest bit sustainable. If we're going to do something about the climate then we need to start looking beyond what makes a nice picture for the news or 60 Minutes.

As for the politics of it all, I would simply make the observation that the ongoing operation of Sydney (for example) would never meet the environmental constraints imposed on any project which comes to the attention of the Greens. And yet I hear no calls to demolish Sydney but do hear a constant stream of people living there jumping up and down about far less serious pollution elsewhere. Look in your own backyard first - fly over Sydney (or any other Australian capital city) and you won't see many solar hot water heaters. But you will see lots of oversized cars sitting in gridlocked traffic.

Most seem more interested in putting their money into bigger homes which use more power, 4x4's, plasmas etc. They say they are concerned but when it comes to the crunch they don't care enough to put their money into emissions reduction and they put it into emissions growth instead. They're not taking it seriously by any means.

Smurf1976 said:

Bob's entire strategy for Tasmania since the early 1980's has been based upon the notion of shutting down or not building any industry that doesn't involve bringing hundreds of thousands or, in his words, "millions" of tourists to the state each year by plane and then having them spend their days driving around looking at the scenery.

Click to expand...

Smurf - last time I went to Tas it was on the Spirit of Tas - ex Sydney - returned the same way -

Sadly no longer available.

playing Devil's advocate here ....
but the ferry would perhaps have been sustainable if Bob's message sunk in a bit more

btw, I've read enough of your posts and picked up on your valid points of criticism on this one.

2020hindsight said:

Smurf - last time I went to Tas it was on the Spirit of Tas - ex Sydney - returned the same way -

Sadly no longer available.

playing Devil's advocate here ....
but the ferry would perhaps have been sustainable if Bob's message sunk in a bit more

btw, I've read enough of your posts and picked up on your valid points of criticism on this one.

Click to expand...

I should point out that I don't hate Bob. Indeed he's certainly in the top half of my vote. Also he's undoubtedly one of the most interesting people I've talked to.

I simply mention him because he is the ultimate Australian environmental politician in terms of the success he's had. And he's done quite a bit of good in a lot of ways too.

But I'll never agree that anything that involves using more oil on a permanent basis is a valid solution to any problem (other than perhaps as an alternative to using even larger amounts of coal / gas).

As a society, I think we really do need to start focusing on energy, and oil in particular, as the massive problem that it is and start doing something about it. I'm told by friends in Brisbane that it would be somewhat socially unacceptable there now to admit to standing in the shower for 20 minutes. I think we need to get to the same point with attitudes towards fuel if we're ever going to have even a hope of doing something about climate change.

Electricity has technological solutions. Sure, it's going to take a few decades to implement them but we know right now how to run a grid in this country without using fossil fuels. It's just a bit expensive now but that should come down. As the only conventional energy supply system that can be made clean, I've no doubt we'll be using far more electricity in 50 years than we do today.

But we've got no idea what we're going to do for transport fuels and that is one almighty problem that's increasingly urgent. Hence I just can't see the validity in promoting travel as the solution to any environmental problem even if the right intentions are there.

Smurf1976 said:

But we've got no idea what we're going to do for transport fuels and that is one almighty problem that's increasingly urgent.

Click to expand...

well
thousands of trucks leaving each and every capital city every night can't be wrong
instead of a handful of trains (or can they ?)

Gotta feeling out grandfathers were cleverer than us in this regard - and I say that DESPITE the fact that they managed to design a change of rail gauge at nearly every state border

Ahh State and Federal politics - some things never change.

let's get rid of states - and have two tiers of govt -
feds for health, education etc
local for roads garbage collection recycling etc

speaking of which - I heard an interesting comment on ABC tday ...
Recycling has come a long way but ...
We should all have our licences endorsed as organ donors. ( only a small percantage have apparently)

lol - they made the comment - so ?? when you die , they put you out on Tuesday night? in a recycling bin???

EXACTLY !! says the interviewee

2020hindsight said:

well
thousands of trucks leaving each and every capital city every night can't be wrong
instead of a handful of trains (or can they ?)

let's get rid of states - and have two tiers of govt -
feds for health, education etc
local for roads garbage collection recycling etc

Click to expand...

Agreed about the trains. Ships too. It always amazes me that there was a push to give us the minimum number of ports in the name of "efficiency" and then move everything by road. It would be far more efficient to have ports all over the place.

Shipping goods from Melbourne to Sydney may well be slower and less econimically efficient but it's massively more fuel efficient than trucks. The shift to trucks will have been economically stupid once fuel gets expensive or we're carbon constrained. Talk about short termism.

A classic example of transport stupidity is the "zinc works" (Nyrstar formerly Zinifex) plant in Hobart. Mine the ore at Rosebery and put it on a train. Unload the train and ship it straight to the plant (has its own wharf). Unload and process the ore. All makes sense so far...

Now put the refined zinc on trucks and move that to another wharf also in Hobart whilst the wharf at the plant is under utilised (they used to load the metal onto ships there). Then unload the trucks and put the zinc onto trains. Then send the train to the other end of the state. Then unload the train and put it on a ship.

I can't believe it's profitable but presumably it is. Even worse when you realise that the trains can't handle all of the zinc so they run trucks almost literally parallel to the trains headed north to take the remainder. I nominate this as the most ridiculous bulk transport arrangement anywhere in Australia. They even built special "Zinc-A-Skel" trucks to carry the load - basically a massively scaled up glazier's truck carrying zinc ingots instead of glass.

As for governments, well the feds sure stuffed up with ports and railways here in Tas. IMO the feds aren't fit to run, well, anything important if this one's any indication. Outright farce and now the state wants to fix it by stopping the trains running into Hobart and using even more trucks.

End result is by 2010 we'll have gone from shipping and railing most goods to trucking very close to 100% not just of zinc, but everything else in and out of southern Tas as well. What progress for a city founded largely on the basis of its deepwater port.

And the destination of the trucks? Well they'll all be going to a new rail hub just north of Hobart...

Needless to say I'm not confident in that we'll come up with solutions to real problems. Getting things on and off ships in Hobart wasn't exactly difficult to start with. It's only been done for a bit over 200 years...

Arguing on the internet...

Global warming/cooling, 911 conspiracy's, Iraqi oil/WMDs

These threads are funny and disturbing....some of the stuff
people come up with. :bonk:

2020hindsight said:

PS Wayne
I don't think STFU is appropriate attitude

Click to expand...

Nonsense.

There are those that talk the talk, and there are those who walk the walk.

STFU means those who preach change, should start leading by example, or STFU.

It is entirely appropriate.

What are you doing?

wayneL said:

1. Nonsense. There are those that talk the talk, and there are those who walk the walk.
2. STFU means those who preach change, should start leading by example, or STFU.

3. It is entirely appropriate.

3. What are you doing?

Click to expand...

Unfortunately mate I have to do some flying this week
It's called making a living - I don't have the luxury of living on my trading. Some of us actually have to DO things lol.

Video-conferencing
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=90699&highlight=interstate#post90699

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.

But when three or four jobs require meetings, then I jump on a plane.

Incidentally, UNTIL the fashion catches on - i.e. that video conferencing is more efficient for the planet - and that will only happen AFTER Al Gore's speakers are heard by more businessmen and others ....

...then that plane I refer to that I will be catching will still fly - just that it will have one more empty seat - nothing I can do personally to stop a flight being booked. (despite how much I might wish it otherwise).

As for the contribution you make in rural WA - great every bit helps
but unless we blast Canberra with some public concern about main grid power generation and a heap of other inefficiencies - then I hate to tell you, but your efforts are pissing in the windpower.

So I still say TFSA (turn (the) flaming speakers up.

TFSA means that the message has gotta SINK IN - for everybody ! ESPECIALLY those in power - should listen rather than pour cold water on his concerns - maybe even sign up on Kyoto next opportunity arises - instead of branding Al Gore and his message a political stunt- without basis - we know what we're doing . etc (this was Canberra until 6 months ago).

PS who knows, Johnny Howard might hopefully declare that Govt doesn't have to meet on Monday IN TIME for hundreds of pollies to avoid flying there. I mean, he could have called the election last Friday and saved a heap of confusion and possible / probable unneccessary air travel .


so in summary
1. I think Al Gore is talking the talk AND because his role in this is to educate ...
he is simultaneously walking the walk.

If you are going to fault him on the size of his house -
or the number or times he flies -

or misrepresenting the number of polar bears who have drowned, when this other reporter clearly knows that only 4 drowned - despite the massive reduction in ice - sheesh - what an idiot Al Gore is the trend is for alarming decline in Arctic ice, end of story - (I think your reporter friend should STFU btw).

2. "STFU means those who preach change, should start leading by example" - ok that's not what it normally means lol - but no probs...

(i.e. I was just saying above that your reporter friend should stop preaching and lead by example )

3. What am I doing
a) not enough
b) teleconferencing
c) driving a small car
d) living in a small fibro house, and
...
e) voting for someone who will listen to Al Gore

PS Question for you Wayne...
Is Al Gore's message going to figure in your voting choice?

PS Also of course we should back Canberra when they get it right - and they are finally starting to think straight in a few directions. Nuclear is necessary unless we are going to seriously address "demand management" .
Sure we can play with solar . I used to import solar powered novelties back in the early 80s) - but Aus is not going to get over the line with current demand and solar power are we -

some swap the syllables and call it ar-sol power by the way - methane etc - but let's not make jokes.

Finally I remember a talk that drove the message home for me - that the consequences of Global Warming are going to make Chernyobel look like a teddy bear's picnic. - thought for the day

for those who have Al Gore's speakers turned down :2 twocents