Resisting Climate Hysteria

[explod]

Ruby;642247]Explod, now you are being naive. However, if you are serious you could practise what you are saying, and stop using all fossil fuels.

I started several years back and I am serious because you will all have to follow in a few years, it is difficult though and I have a long way to go. However each new accomplishment brings huge personal satisfaction

You will have to live without electricity, telephone, car, heating, most of the clothing you wear and most manufactured goods. You will have to live on food you grow yourself or which you can barter with other like-minded people. You can't use money, because money has to be minted, and that requires energy provided by fossil fuels. You will have to walk everywhere (unless you own a horse or donkey) because even a bicycle requires oil.

A hard one this, so far have a chip heater for showers and open wood fire for heating with coper pipes through for other hot water. Wood I collect by helping others clear blocks and rubbish and pellets from building sites.

Now you know another reason why I collect silver coins. (go to silver thread)

I do walk everywhere but still have a small Toyota truck at this stage.

Have an extensive vegitable garden and also a big one in the rear yard of an elderly neighbor, other neighbour's asssist with gardening and share in goods produced. Another provides eggs. Being off a farm I go to a property some distance (hence the truck) and kill a sheep for meat every few months.

But we have a long way to go.

You won't have any internet of course, so your only form of communication (apart from verbal) will be the written word - on paper you have made yourself, with writing implements you have made yourself.

This is a new area of concern and generating our own power is something that has to be tackled. Have a few ideas but not resolved in the mind yet. Thought we were onto a good one the other day but was pointed out a hoax.

You won't have any milk or butter (unless you have a cow) or eggs (unless you keep chooks) or meat (unless you or one of your neighbours butchers an animal), and of course no fresh food will keep for long because you won't have any refrigeration - nice in our hot summers! You will have to eat seasonal food, and if crops fail........ well!!

Some of this answered above, looking at converting a kero fridge to run on natural oil apparently feasible. The real future will be direct food that does not need refridgeration or much cooking.

You will soon go out of your mind because you will have no books or newspapers to read; and you will be exhausted from doing backbreaking work from dawn till dark before you cook your meal over a wood fire - with wood you have collected yourself.

the only light you will have in the evening will be from candles made from rendered animal fat - hmmm! Lovely!!

As an artist (BA Hons fine art) and in a community alive with intellectuals we can well amuse ourselves and be much happier too. And with computers who needs books anyway.

Incidently, if every single person in Australia did this; if we all reverted to a subsistance lifestyle tomorrow, the effect on the global temperature would be miniscule. Unless you are prepared to do this, you really have no case.

In my view most people over the entire planet will soon have to do this. The Chinese and Indians who are going our way now will be able to go back much easier, will you. Having my childhood on a farm it is much easier for me too as in the 1950's without power or phones we did well.

Below is a list of things you can't use, because they are made from petroleum

Not an issue as soon there will be no oil.

 

[basilio]

Basilio, I know my comments were extreme. That was my rather frustrated response to naive comments "something has to be done............ fossil fuel use has to be stopped". It is not that simplistic. We currently have no viable alternative, and I don't see our government building lots of nuclear power stations, wind farms or installing (Australian made) solar panels on every surface that the sun shines on.

Even if we do everything you suggest, our efforts will make little measurable difference to global temperatures (which are not rising anyway).

Actually Ruby there are quite viable alternatives to radically and quickly re engineering our world. They have been mapped out many times including quite detailed plans for Australia. And if there was the political will we could have a red hot go at putting them into practice.

To do that would be the rough equivalent of ww2 mobilisation and change of direction.

But of course nothing like that appears likely to happen does it ?

So what will the alternative be? If Alan Jones, Professor Carter, Lord Monkcton and co are correct this will all be a storm in a tea cup and we'll wonder in 30-50 years time what the fuss was about.

On the other hand if James Hanson, Al Gore. Australia's Chief Scientist , and almost all the scientific community that actually studies this issue are correct, in 30 years we will be dealing with an earth rapidly heating beyond the tolerances of most of the current ecosystems. And we would also have to deal with a shortage of fossils fuels.

Given these consequences of being wrong you would really want an extremely high certainty that our current scientific community is so utterly wrong wouldn't you ? Do you believe you have it ? Have you considered having at look James Hanson's paper whose link I posted earlier today ?

 

[drsmith]

In my view most people over the entire planet will soon have to do this. The Chinese and Indians who are going our way now will be able to go back much easier, will you.

Not in the absence of a massive human population reduction.

China's and India's populations are well beyond what a subsistance lifestyle can support, as is the globe as a whole. To consider otherwise is fantasy.

 

[noco]

I started several years back and I am serious because you will all have to follow in a few years, it is difficult though and I have a long way to go. However each new accomplishment brings huge personal satisfaction



A hard one this, so far have a chip heater for showers and open wood fire for heating with coper pipes through for other hot water. Wood I collect by helping others clear blocks and rubbish and pellets from building sites.

Now you know another reason why I collect silver coins. (go to silver thread)

I do walk everywhere but still have a small Toyota truck at this stage.

Have an extensive vegitable garden and also a big one in the rear yard of an elderly neighbor, other neighbour's asssist with gardening and share in goods produced. Another provides eggs. Being off a farm I go to a property some distance (hence the truck) and kill a sheep for meat every few months.

But we have a long way to go.



This is a new area of concern and generating our own power is something that has to be tackled. Have a few ideas but not resolved in the mind yet. Thought we were onto a good one the other day but was pointed out a hoax.




Some of this answered above, looking at converting a kero fridge to run on natural oil apparently feasible. The real future will be direct food that does not need refridgeration or much cooking.



As an artist (BA Hons fine art) and in a community alive with intellectuals we can well amuse ourselves and be much happier too. And with computers who needs books anyway.



In my view most people over the entire planet will soon have to do this. The Chinese and Indians who are going our way now will be able to go back much easier, will you. Having my childhood on a farm it is much easier for me too as in the 1950's without power or phones we did well.



Not an issue as soon there will be no oil.

You must Dave's father from Gundagai where the dog sat on the tucker box.

I think it is now 2011 and there has been a few changes since then. We now have a radical Green/Labor Government hell bent on taking us back to those dark and dim ages. You might just be in luck

 

[mexican]

Very extreme Bas.
What lost it for me was the IPCC's name is on it, they have as much credibility as our PM.
"THE SCIENCE IS CLEAR".......trying to make people think it is a certainty not a theory.
Any way half his luck he is earning some cash on the side!

http://nation.foxnews.com/climate-change/2011/06/22/global-warming-scientist-james-hansen-exposed

 

[white_goodman]

Not an issue as soon there will be no oil.

the large fields they just discovered in the Atlantic and Brazil say otherwise...

you seriously ONLY argue based on greeny-do-goodery and totally ignore facts/stats/figures. You seem to have a religious belief in some doomsday model or world armageddon and like the majority of modern liberals (small 'l' non classical definition) you seem quite willing to throw away vast amounts of individual freedoms in the name of your intellectual, world vision.

 

[ghotib]

Explod, now you are being naive. However, if you are serious you could practise what you are saying, and stop using all fossil fuels.

You will have to live without electricity, telephone, car, heating, most of the clothing you wear and most manufactured goods. You will have to live on food you grow yourself or which you can barter with other like-minded people. You can't use money, because money has to be minted, and that requires energy provided by fossil fuels. You will have to walk everywhere (unless you own a horse or donkey) because even a bicycle requires oil. You won't have any internet of course, so your only form of communication (apart from verbal) will be the written word - on paper you have made yourself, with writing implements you have made yourself.

You won't have any milk or butter (unless you have a cow) or eggs (unless you keep chooks) or meat (unless you or one of your neighbours butchers an animal), and of course no fresh food will keep for long because you won't have any refrigeration - nice in our hot summers! You will have to eat seasonal food, and if crops fail........ well!!

You will soon go out of your mind because you will have no books or newspapers to read; and you will be exhausted from doing backbreaking work from dawn till dark before you cook your meal over a wood fire - with wood you have collected yourself.

the only light you will have in the evening will be from candles made from rendered animal fat - hmmm! Lovely!!

Incidentally, if every single person in Australia did this; if we all reverted to a subsistance lifestyle tomorrow, the effect on the global temperature would be miniscule. Unless you are prepared to do this, you really have no case.

Below is a list of things you can't use, because they are made from petroleum

http://www.ranken-energy.com/Products from Petroleum.htm

Now THAT's alarmist

 

[explod]

Not in the absence of a massive human population reduction.

China's and India's populations are well beyond what a subsistance lifestyle can support, as is the globe as a whole. To consider otherwise is fantasy.

Aha, the weight of the very possible problem.

 

[Julia]

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/

Surely not true, Wayne! How could this possibly be in the face of the 'settled science' which has assured us that floods, cyclones and other extreme events will be not only more frequent, but more intense?
It is not possible, of course, that those promoting that 'settled science' might actually be wrong.

 

[basilio]

Surely not true, Wayne! How could this possibly be in the face of the 'settled science' which has assured us that floods, cyclones and other extreme events will be not only more frequent, but more intense?
It is not possible, of course, that those promoting that 'settled science' might actually be wrong.

Or perhaps we are looking at one teensy weeny little part of on climate system for a couple of years and we don't want to peek at the floods, droughts, storms, heatwaves and whatever that are part of the rest of the world ? And while we are at it we might close our eyes to the insurance companies who notice these sort of things because they have to make payouts on these events and decide how much next years premium will be.

I was fascinated by Wayne's little titbit. There are scores and scores of large, medium and smaller studies that demonstrate the effects of global warming around the world. (You can check them out on James Hansen's paper) But these of course hold no sway when compared to one non conforming study. That does say it all in this discussion doesn't it ?

 

[ghotib]

Which one? The one about water vapour? There are plenty scattered throughout this thread, but here is one.....

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

Below is an excerpt from that link (with apologies - the table didn't copy properly!) I know that Wiki is not the best source of information, but I think it will give you an answer to that particular question. Please come back to me if I haven't answered your question.

Thank you for the link. If you read it again I think you'll realise that it doesn't support your point. You were saying the water vapour is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. As the Wikipedia article implies, there's a lot more of it but it's not more potent because its residence time is so short. There's an explicit discussion in the last section of this article, if you're interested.

I didn't specify which of your statements I'd like to see citations for, but there are several. Here are some from this thread:

From post 1931:

...there are many reports that show there is climate change. None has proven we are responsible. Our degree of responsibility (if any) is as yet unknown.

From post 1965:

What is undeniable is:- Our climate is changing. To date scientists cannot agree on the reasons for this. More and more scientists who were once in the 'alarmist' camp are defecting to the other side. Data has been manipulated.

From post 1988:

The scientific method requires that a hypothesis be tested until observational data proves it to be either true or false.

From post 2000:

CO2 may amplify the warming effect, but not in a straight line, so the amount of warming reduces as CO2 increases.

And

There has been no warming in the last 10 years

From post 2025:

The theory that human activity is driving climate change is only about 30 years old.

Also from post 2025. In this case I'm asking for the source of the argument that that you rightly reject.

To simply say "Human CO2 emissions are increasing. The global temperature has been rising. Therefore the second factor is caused by first," is faulty logic, and is unscientific. The two could be happening entirely independently of one another.

From post 2203:

The models predicting 'dangerous' global warming have been proven wrong. Observation has shown that there has been no global warming for 10 years. The predicted "hot spot" has not been found.

From the same post, I'm asking what significance you attach to this point, which you've made several times:

The predicted "hot spot" has not been found. Warming has always preceded increased CO2 emissions - not the other way round.

Post 2283:

observation has shown that in the real atmosphere, the rise in CO2 plotted against the rise in temperature is not a straight line, it is a parabolic curve. In fact, after a while, further increases in CO2 have little impact on temperature.

Thanks,
Ghoti

 

[ghotib]

Obviously we can't keep burning fossil fuels forever. It's the timing of a change that's in question.

One of the things that seriously scares me about the whole CO2 thing is the notion that we should use natural gas, the only real alternative to diminishing oil supplies we have for transport, to generate electricity. That's like turning diamonds into lead. If we're going to meddle with the means of producing electricity then banning baseload gas, rather than increasing it, would make more sense...

Smurf have you had look at the Stationary Energy plan produced by the Beyond Zero group? They claim it shows how Australia could go to 100% renewable energy sources by 2020, using existing technology. It would be great to know that this really is technically possible so we can concentrate on the economic / political hurdles.

Cheers,
Ghoti

 

[wayneL]

I was fascinated by Wayne's little titbit. There are scores and scores of large, medium and smaller studies that demonstrate the effects of global warming around the world. (You can check them out on James Hansen's paper) But these of course hold no sway when compared to one non conforming study. That does say it all in this discussion doesn't it ?

How disingenuous. "One" non conforming study?

LMAO

I believe there are a few more than one lingering around for alarmists to ignore.

Basilio I hate to belabour the point that sceptics are trying to make, but we all know climate changes, we all know there has been some evidence of warming - since the little ice age in fact.

Regional climate change due to land use considerations aside, the argument is about the purported mechanisms of global climate change. The alarmist models have totally missed the mark and as we see now, alarmists are trying to pin any weather event as climate change. The sad fact is that when proper analysis is undertaken, all these weather events are well within the normal range of what happens on this planet.

Just like you have done in the preceding post, alarmists refuse to acknowledge the (poorly funded and hence far less undertaken) body of science which contradicts the Runaway Global Warming Hypothesis, and that their models are utterly failing to predict climate patterns.

And let's not even mention the gross hypocrisy of you and your fellow doomsday klaxons, Gore, Hansen, Blanchett, that imbecile Caton, et al.

 

[Ruby]

I started several years back and I am serious because you will all have to follow in a few years, it is difficult though and I have a long way to go. However each new accomplishment brings huge personal satisfaction

A hard one this, so far have a chip heater for showers and open wood fire for heating with coper pipes through for other hot water. Wood I collect by helping others clear blocks and rubbish and pellets from building sites.

Now you know another reason why I collect silver coins. (go to silver thread)

I do walk everywhere but still have a small Toyota truck at this stage.

Have an extensive vegitable garden and also a big one in the rear yard of an elderly neighbor, other neighbour's asssist with gardening and share in goods produced. Another provides eggs. Being off a farm I go to a property some distance (hence the truck) and kill a sheep for meat every few months.

But we have a long way to go.

This is a new area of concern and generating our own power is something that has to be tackled. Have a few ideas but not resolved in the mind yet. Thought we were onto a good one the other day but was pointed out a hoax.

Some of this answered above, looking at converting a kero fridge to run on natural oil apparently feasible. The real future will be direct food that does not need refridgeration or much cooking.

As an artist (BA Hons fine art) and in a community alive with intellectuals we can well amuse ourselves and be much happier too. And with computers who needs books anyway.

In my view most people over the entire planet will soon have to do this. The Chinese and Indians who are going our way now will be able to go back much easier, will you. Having my childhood on a farm it is much easier for me too as in the 1950's without power or phones we did well.

Not an issue as soon there will be no oil.

Explod, you have painted a very rosy picture, but in reality, a subsistance lifestyle is one of grinding poverty, endless labour and no leisure.

 

[macca]

A hard one this, so far have a chip heater for showers and open wood fire for heating with coper pipes through for other hot water. Wood I collect by helping others clear blocks and rubbish and pellets from building sites.

Hi Explod,

Your life style sounds very suitable for someone who grew up on a farm and enjoys nature. I like wide open spaces myself so know where you are coming from.

I do think that with a bit of investigation you will find that a lot of the big changes in lifestyle are made through necessity as the population grows. I recall reading once that if everyone rode a horse to work in Sydney the droppings would be half a metre deep every day (in the CBD) LOL

The same applies to using wood fires for heating, in the city this causes pollution problems, see link http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/woodsmoke/

I would liken your lifestyle to one of choice and support your right to live it but it is not possible for everyone to live like that in the city.

 

[Ruby]

Thank you for the link. If you read it again I think you'll realise that it doesn't support your point. You were saying the water vapour is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2. As the Wikipedia article implies, there's a lot more of it but it's not more potent because its residence time is so short. There's an explicit discussion in the last section of this article, if you're interested.

Thanks,
Ghoti

From the link you gave me:-

What are the main greenhouse gases? Because of all the press coverage it has received in recent years, you may think that carbon dioxide (CO2) is "the big one". Though CO2's role is important, water vapor is actually the dominant greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere. Water vapor generates more greenhouse effect on our planet than does any other single gas. Water, in gaseous form (as water vapor) and in liquid form (as tiny droplets in clouds), generates somewhere between 66% and 85% of the greenhouse effect. We'll get back to the issue of the large range that "66% to 85%" represents in a minute; it turns out that separating the impact of individual greenhouse gases is not a simple matter.

Ghotib, I will get back to the rest of your query, but don't have time now.

Cheers,
Ruby

 

[Ruby]

Actually Ruby there are quite viable alternatives to radically and quickly re engineering our world. They have been mapped out many times including quite detailed plans for Australia. And if there was the political will we could have a red hot go at putting them into practice.

To do that would be the rough equivalent of ww2 mobilisation and change of direction.

But of course nothing like that appears likely to happen does it ?

Bas, I think we are veering slightly off topic here (and I take my share of responsibility for that). I, like you would like a better world with less pollution, etc, but the topic is climate change and whether it is cause for alarm.

So what will the alternative be? If Alan Jones, Professor Carter, Lord Monkcton and co are correct this will all be a storm in a tea cup and we'll wonder in 30-50 years time what the fuss was about.

On the other hand if James Hanson, Al Gore. Australia's Chief Scientist , and almost all the scientific community that actually studies this issue are correct, in 30 years we will be dealing with an earth rapidly heating beyond the tolerances of most of the current ecosystems. And we would also have to deal with a shortage of fossils fuels.

Given these consequences of being wrong you would really want an extremely high certainty that our current scientific community is so utterly wrong wouldn't you ? Do you believe you have it ? Have you considered having at look James Hanson's paper whose link I posted earlier today ?

Despite what Hanson and Gore say, the observed fact is that the earth is not rapidly heating; the warming we have experienced in the last few hundred years is within normal variation; the global temperature has not risen in the last 10 years. These are observed facts. You keep ignoring this. On the large scale of geological time, what is happening to our climate is not unusual. Nothing we can do in Australia is going to stop it.

 

[trainspotter]

Ian Rutherford Plimer (born 12 February 1946) is an Australian geologist, academic, professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide, and a director of four mining companies. He is known as a prominent critic of creationism and more recently for his writings opposing the scientific consensus that human activities have a significant influence on global warming.

Plimer is the author of around 60 academic papers and six books, including his book on the global warming debate, Heaven and Earth ”” Global Warming: The Missing Science (2009).

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 kid's "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 cents 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 ONLY 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 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 its entire 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 keep 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” any more, 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, give the world a hug and have a nice day!

PS: I wonder if Iceland is buying carbon offsets?

 

[derty]

ts, this is just some of the 1st page of a google search:
http://www.rense.com/general94/onevol.htm
http://conservativecritic.wordpress.com/2011/06/21/the-global-warming-scam-stops-here-2/
http://forum.cyberhorse.com.au/forums/showpost.php?p=826724&postcount=1
http://www.finders.com.au/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5963&sid=a149fe872910df52b6a99d17b4d357a2
http://www.past-life-test.com/volcano.html
http://www.kotadama.com/blog.cfm?postid=815718&feature=2089062
http://gl-w.blogspot.com/2011/03/g0427-co2-carbon-tax-scam-has-iceland.html

It's unmitigated bollocks ts. The main Pinatubo eruption released about half a days worth of global CO2 emissions.

If the 'sceptics' spent a fraction of their sceptical energies actually investigating the validity and basic scientific robustness of some of the claims that get posted up here this thread would be less of a sad version of Groundhog Day and people might actually learn something.

bye again

 

[Calliope]

Explod, you have painted a very rosy picture, but in reality, a subsistance lifestyle is one of grinding poverty, endless labour and no leisure.

As a high ranking police officer in "another life," Plod would be on a substantial pension and well able to afford his little hobbies, as well as making substantial donations to the Greens. I fancy however that he spends more time crouching over his computer than over his veggie patch.