wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,947
- Reactions
- 13,236
Basilio,
:sleeping:
Science is irrelevant.
Politics is relevant.
IMO
:sleeping:
Science is irrelevant.
Politics is relevant.
IMO
Resisting Climate Hysteria
- Thread starter Mickel
- Start date
- Joined
- 15 January 2008
- Posts
- 691
- Reactions
- 1
Not such a long read sails.
It's quite easy to calculate.
Pre-industrial levels about 280ppm (0.028%)
Current levels around 390ppm (0.039%)
We have added approx 110ppm (0.011%)
Therefore man made CO2 currently constitutes approx 28% of the atmospheric CO2 and represents an increase of 39% over pre-industrial levels.
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,586
- Reactions
- 7,466
As I indicated in my earlier post the Allianz website offers an excellent analysis of the global warming debate and even manages to address many of the misunderstandings and sometimes mistakes run by those who want to stop any action on this problem.
http://knowledge.allianz.com/climate/science/?172/co2-endless-warming-greenhouse-gases
As to the tiny amount that Australia contributes to global CO2. Of course it is very small and in the context of 200 hundred years of increasing fossil fuel use as well as the impact of all countries energy use our influence is limited. But this doesn't give us a Get out of Jail card.
Think of any humumgous enterprise. A world war, building giant pyramids, the Manhattan project (that is creating the atomic bomb), creating a premiership football team . Anything of great magnitude requires a combined effort where by definition each individual part's effect is limited - but still a part of the whole. And an important part of a group effort is that everyone plays their role and doesn't squib.
And by the way this stuff about the poor workers of Australia being screwed for $800 a year is again a mischief. The proposal incorporates a rebate to lower paid workers and social security recipients to mitigate these effects. Again there is a good discussion on this in The Age. Of course if you want create a scene about A BIG NEW TAX you certainly wouldn't want to acknowledge anything that would reduce your thunder.
It has been said a few times but I'll repeat it. The overwhelming majority of climate scientists as well as biologists, geographers ect believe human induced global warming is real. The physical evidence for this warming is now documented across temperature patterns, reduction in Arctic and Antarctic ice volumes, size of glaciers , the patterns of animal and plant reproduction. The list goes on.
Is there a chance that they are all dead wrong and that we can continue to increase greenhouse gases without care and not cook our bacon? Maybe ...... . But why are we dismissing potentially the biggest threat to common safety on some very flimsy grounds against the total understandings of the huge majority of scientists who study this field?
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...-fine-print-on-carbon-tax-20110405-1d2s7.html
white_goodman
BOC
- Joined
- 13 December 2007
- Posts
- 1,635
- Reactions
- 0
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,586
- Reactions
- 7,466
Droll Wayne, droll. What you seem to be saying is that any facts in this situation are simply irrelevant compared to the machinations of political power. Thats good. We now know that all your convoluted comments trying to disparage global warming were unnecessary because in the end the critical question is not whether there is a problem but how elegantly or forcefully one can deny it.
- Joined
- 16 June 2005
- Posts
- 4,281
- Reactions
- 6
An absolute mischief to screw labor's "working families" for this amount...
How can any sort of fair compensation be reached? As Smurf has pointed out in one of these threads everybody's use of electricity, fuel, etc is different.
And Ms Gillard has brazenly renegged on no carbon tax in her government. Isn't there a further risk she will reneg on compensation when it suits her agenda?
And the rest of your post is your opinion and articles that support your opinion. I acknowledge we are poles apart in our opinions of this absurd situation.
I have honestly yet to meet anyone who is pushing for this tax that is pretty sure they won't be compensated or they have some financial gain. No point asking if you fall into the category of potentially being compensated as there is no way of verifying it. However, I do wonder what your motivation might be.
Maybe GG is right and this is the next religious cult. It has all the markings of such.
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,586
- Reactions
- 7,466
White Goodman you just provided an url for a website which laid out a case for total denial of the global warming case. Have yoiu actually had a chance to investigate this website in more detail?
My first observation was I simply couldn't find a name for any person taking any responsibility for the story. Who was this? A climate scientist ? A think tank? Nothing.
I than had a oood read and discovered immediately a number off completely false statements. Have a read of the Allianz material and one can the easily detect the lies and misinformation.
But the real point is that the majority of the website is extolling the wonders of coal in the Appalachian mountains and how important it is to use this magnificent resource. This is just a puff piece to promote coal. It has no basis as a source of factual information.
My first observation was I simply couldn't find a name for any person taking any responsibility for the story. Who was this? A climate scientist ? A think tank? Nothing.
I than had a oood read and discovered immediately a number off completely false statements. Have a read of the Allianz material and one can the easily detect the lies and misinformation.
But the real point is that the majority of the website is extolling the wonders of coal in the Appalachian mountains and how important it is to use this magnificent resource. This is just a puff piece to promote coal. It has no basis as a source of factual information.
white_goodman
BOC
- Joined
- 13 December 2007
- Posts
- 1,635
- Reactions
- 0
you must be living in a different world to what I am, like the vast number of social welfare programs, whether that be subidised university education, minmum wage laws etc etc, the poor always pay for it, I dont know of this benevolent govt you believe in that thinks it can tax big business and wealthy individuals and the poor dont suffer the most. Your knowledge on economics is rudimentary at best and you obviously live in a household where you expect to eat a lot of free lunches.
Are you under the assumption the govt (group A) can take money from group B, to spend on Group C, and you think that the bureaucracy and endless govt workers will spend this money effectively... if they wanna develop green technology then do it via the future fund, and let it compete with other energy producers..
but hey what sacrifice is it to allow the govt more control, more power over everyones lives, they are all knowing all seeing, and know whats best (hey look at the history of govt).. long live stalin
also that article you linked just goes to show the state of media these days, what a load of idiocy
IFocus
You are arguing with a Galah
- Joined
- 8 September 2006
- Posts
- 7,649
- Reactions
- 4,719
Thanks to basilio and derty for the informed debate just wish the other side would debate in a similar style.
- Joined
- 16 June 2005
- Posts
- 4,281
- Reactions
- 6
So what's with the "holier than thou" approach? GG is right - this is like a religious cult.
And the use of "mischief" and "denier" are nothing but attempts at belittling another's view point. Just because someone doesn't agree with your view point is no reason to call them a denier. I could just as easily call you a denier for not seeing the truth as I see it. Pretty childish. Surely there is enough to debate without resorting to petty names.
Here is a view point from Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who says the carbon tax will be a heavy tax with no benefit.
Interview with Chris Smith: http://www.2gb.com/index.php?option=com_podcasting&task=view&id=29&Itemid=41
PS - thanks derty for your information which was given without the silly name calling. Your posts are informative and objective.
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,947
- Reactions
- 13,236
Bas,
I know the Fabians teach you to spin everything, but there is an art to it. The art is to make the ridiculous believable, otherwise it's just ridiculous.
Take your comment here; your attempt at spin is so amateurish that the ridiculous still sounds totally ridiculous.
Firstly, there is no attempt to deny changes in climate by the majority of people outside of the uncritical CC believers group. Many do believe humans are responsible for some changes and certainly on a regional scale. There is simply an attempt to arrive at a considered and balanced view and reasonable solutions if practical and/or necessary.
Secondly, only an imbecile would not realize that politics takes any issue and politicizes it, making the actual facts irrelevant. Pragmatism has no place where ideology reigns. For eg - Iraq anyone?
Thirdly, you have grossly and dishonestly misrepresented my personal position which I have repeated ad nauseum in this and other threads, reflecting the tactics of broader church of GW - when the dodgy science fails, go ad hominem.
pfffft
Whiskers
It's a small world
- Joined
- 21 August 2007
- Posts
- 3,266
- Reactions
- 1
Yeah, the CO2 numbers are certainly rising, but I'm not convinced it's necessairly causing a great amount of global climate change.
What I'm noticing is maybe the lack of oxygen generationgiving a bit of a mis balance. What if the polar ice caps and other huge glaciers have been hoarding oxygen for some time and need to melt to release some of it back into the atmosphere?
The other issue I'm thinking about is accompaning man's industrialization of the world, we have also 'cleaned' up a lot of the forests which generate oxygen, but maybe more importantly we have probably taken too much of a dislike for some plants like algae that generate more oxygen and would help maintain the status quo.
But looking at the big picture, is the status quo meant to be?
The oxygen level seems to have been in decline in the 2.5 odd million years since before our ancesters evolved. Does that mean the humaniod form is/will evolve to accomodate a new atmosphere?
It is suggested that higher concentrations of things like Nitrous Oxide is causing an increased carcenogenic effect. But, maybe that is also a 'natural' leveling factor to cull the more susceptable and let those whose genes modify to resist cancer to survive.
The bottom line for me is certainly we have released too much pollution into the environment, but I'm a bit bemused by the focus on CO2 and apparently trying to maintain a status quo, when probably it's going against the natural cycle of things.
Attachments
IFocus
You are arguing with a Galah
- Joined
- 8 September 2006
- Posts
- 7,649
- Reactions
- 4,719
More succinct way of putting what I was trying to say
white_goodman
BOC
- Joined
- 13 December 2007
- Posts
- 1,635
- Reactions
- 0
just watching the APAC channel on foxtel, what a vomit session... what is this 1934 Nuremberg?
- Joined
- 23 September 2008
- Posts
- 919
- Reactions
- 174
I'm struggling to understand why the the AGW alarmists that frequent this hysteria thread haven't quickly highlighted to us Flannery's Gaia plan for the globe. Surely the alarmists must agree that their main AGW man in Australia (paid by you and me) knows and understands what must be done to "save" the world (or the "ant colony").
Now's the time for the AGW alarmists folks here to step up and bond with Flannery and back his plan for a "global super organism" and a "stronger Gaia", anyone?
To be brutally honest I have no idea what he's talking about. I can only assume the "Global Super Organism" is the unelected UN driven one world government that directs us "ants" to work to serve the mysterious Gaia.
This man has lost it and does not represent me or my beliefs in anyway whatsoever.
Now's the time for the AGW alarmists folks here to step up and bond with Flannery and back his plan for a "global super organism" and a "stronger Gaia", anyone?
To be brutally honest I have no idea what he's talking about. I can only assume the "Global Super Organism" is the unelected UN driven one world government that directs us "ants" to work to serve the mysterious Gaia.
This man has lost it and does not represent me or my beliefs in anyway whatsoever.
- Joined
- 28 October 2008
- Posts
- 8,609
- Reactions
- 39
The interaction of various forms of life as part of a greater being. In other words, a form of god. It's a nice idea, but where's the proof ?
This is where he has lost the plot.
It was only a few hundred years ago that the semi-global super organisms were the unelected religious orders that directed their "ants" to work to serve their mysterious gods.
This model of power is something we should only look as as part of our history, if for no other reason than to understand its limitations.
ghotib
THIMKER
- Joined
- 30 July 2004
- Posts
- 1,057
- Reactions
- 88
ROFL
Have you come across a book called "Godel, Escher, Bach; An Eternal Golden Braid" by Douglas Hostadter? I'd bet my house Tim Flannery has. Not that he quotes the book or references it directly, but there are loud echoes of Hofstadter in the ant colony as an example of an emergent consciousness and his delight in the way complex systems, not least life itself, have evolved from very simple bases.
Flannery isn't talking about government, neither of one world nor of one nation, nor even of one forum. He's not talking about anything imposed. His discussion of ants doesn't mean that people are mere workers in the service of Gaia (which isn't really mysterious, BTW, and is certainly not a plan). A really simplistic generalisation of what he's saying is that the whole (an ant colony or a human brain) is more than the sum of its parts (the ants or the brain cells).
If this talk gives you the heebies then forget it; it's nothing to do with climate policy. If you're curious about what he's talking about and you don't want to read his book, then have a go at Hofstadter. It's not everybody's cup of tea, but I've been entertained and challenged by it for 30 years and I'd love to pass the fun along http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gödel,_Escher,_Bach.
Ghoti
- Joined
- 16 June 2005
- Posts
- 4,281
- Reactions
- 6
Ghoti, I understand you are deep into the theory of all things carbon, but honestly, does Australia really need to go into deep financial pain to try and reduce world emissions by a fraction of a percent?
Australia only emits 1.28% of world carbon emissions, so 5% of that (at great economic cost) really isn't going to make a difference. At least that's the logical thinking.
As an analogy, weather forecasters so intent on all their theories, weather maps. computer models and charts that they sometimes forget to look out of the window. No point in forecasting a fine day because theory says so when it is bucketing down outside. Sometimes we have to accept some practical logic as well.
- Joined
- 8 May 2010
- Posts
- 1,202
- Reactions
- 0
When the benefit of an ETS is larger than the error in computer generated models, come ask me this question again
Good luck. I'm sure by then we will all have our computers turned off because we can't afford the electricity.
