Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Happy]

… I find it difficult to understand that you would rather have your grandkids living in a climate that might be 0.0038% less rise in temperature than having good career and life style opportunities. Our Australian way of life is far more important to me for my grandkids than MAYBE preventing an 0.0038% temperature rise in 90 years time.
….

Funny thing is that this “0.0038% temperature rise in 90 years time” might be a good thing if we are heading toward next mini-ice age.
Since supposedly temperature is slightly dropping in last 10 years instead of continuously rising I don’t think this is not a possibility.

 

[Boggo]

The apparent reality ?

http://vidcall.com/index.php/videos/show/2455

 

[Smurf1976]

For example they could tell the car industry that they must change to l.p.g and diesel power only by 2015 and l.p.g electric only by 2020.

Such high use of LPG creates an upstream supply problem, at least unless a lot of refineries are reconfigured to intentionally crack crude oil into butane / propane. I wouldn't underestimate the difficulties in bringing that about in such a short timeframe.

 

[sptrawler]

Such high use of LPG creates an upstream supply problem, at least unless a lot of refineries are reconfigured to intentionally crack crude oil into butane / propane. I wouldn't underestimate the difficulties in bringing that about in such a short timeframe.

It has to be cheap when compared to what they are suggesting regards power stations. Also the technology is there to facilitate the change.
With regard timeframes I just plucked them out of the air, with a study sensible timeframes could be ascertained.
The main thrust of the suggestion was to show there is technology readily available that could make a huge improvement to air quality in cities right now.
However the government chooses to not agressively pursue it, therefore in reality is the intent to raise a tax, or to clean up our atmosphere?
Actually it would probably send a bigger message to the world that we are serious about tackling pollution than the carbon tax does.

 

[Logique]

Again it's only the older, established scientists that feel safe to speak out. But of course, we must not forget, the science is in, Gregory Ivan told us so.

A Nobel laureate makes a stand against the global warming faith:
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/
Dr. Ivar Giaever, a former professor with Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and the 1973 winner of the Nobel Prize in physics, abruptly announced his resignation Tuesday, Sept. 13, from the premier physics society in disgust over its officially stated policy that “global warming is occurring.”

The official position of the American Physical Society (APS) supports the theory that man’s actions have inexorably led to the warming of the planet, through increased emissions of carbon dioxide.

Giaever does not agree…

“I resign from APS,” Giaever wrote.

 

[wayneL]

Gore-athon flops, truly a bore-athon.

Even warmists dry wretch.

 

[OzWaveGuy]

Gore-athon flops, truly a bore-athon.

Even warmists dry wretch.

Not too fast....I'm sure basilio will soon deliver another "book post" that asserts millions more have been on-boarded as AGW believers due to the compelling non-evidence from the bore and the rigged models. The bore event now claims all bush fires and floods are now attributed to man's deadly 3% component of all Co2 and are considered extreme events that were predicted years ago - along with the rains that would never come.

 

[basilio]

Not too fast....I'm sure basilio will soon deliver another "book post" that asserts millions more have been on-boarded as AGW believers due to the compelling non-evidence from the bore and the rigged models. The bore event now claims all bush fires and floods are now attributed to man's deadly 3% component of all Co2 and are considered extreme events that were predicted years ago - along with the rains that would never come.

Oz, Your just full of sxxx..

 

[Calliope]

Oz, Your just full of sxxx..

Nasty! Your true nature is showing through basilio.

 

[sails]

lol basilio.

FYI, I have found OWG's posts far more sensible than yours on climate change. Going back a couple of years, I passively believed the AGW line but didn't take too much notice of it really.

When we were threatened with Rudd's ETS, then I did sit up and take notice - probably like many other Aussies who decided we needed to know more.

Among other things, I read the for and against posts and have to say that yours didn't make much sense while those from OWG, WayneL, etc made complete sense. Someone here called me a "denier" - and that was the final tipping point. AGW was clearly a cultist style organisation to be segregating people in this distasteful manner.

I still remain mildly open that not ALL AGW is a lie to extract money from an unsuspecting public. But I will not be convinced until the money (tax) issue is removed and when scientists no longer fear the pulling of funding if they don't produce the required results.

So, if it's between you and OWG being full of the inedible to which you allude, then I would have to say it is you...

 

[Smurf1976]

lSomeone here called me a "denier" - and that was the final tipping point. AGW was clearly a cultist style organisation to be segregating people in this distasteful manner.

I still remain mildly open that not ALL AGW is a lie to extract money from an unsuspecting public. But I will not be convinced until the money (tax) issue is removed and when scientists no longer fear the pulling of funding if they don't produce the required results.

Likewise.

Logic suggests that tinkering with the Earth's atmosphere probably isn't the smartest thing to be doing, but the "denier" tag reveals the whole thing for what it is.

Virtually all scientific knowledge and overall human advancement came about due to those who questioned conventional wisdom and looked for alternative answers or methods. To be ridiculing such people represents a rather blatant attempt to suppress future discoveries and overall progress.

Now, if someone promoting a scientific theory want to suppress research and thought then that sets of all sorts of alarm bells. If the science is settled then WHY don't the proponents of AGW want you or me questioning it? If the science stacks up then there simply should not be a problem with anyone questioning it.

20 years ago I believed it to be true and a valid issue. I now believe it to be perhaps 80/20 scam/fact due to the "denier" argument. When someone tries to stop you, me or anyone else from thinking then there's a reason for that and the answer is never good.

I would personally consider the related issues of oil depletion, groundwater contamination from natural gas production, the multiple problems surrounding nuclear energy and the very real threat of war over oil and gas resources to be more worthy of attention than CO2 coming out of a coal-fired power plant. The whole AGW thing has achieved little other than to divert attention and resources away from the real energy, resource and environmental problems we face. Indeed by encouraging a shift toward gas for power generation it has actually made the resource problem worse rather than better.

And then there's soil degradation, toxic accumulation in the food chain, phosphate run-off (and phosphate resource depletion), running out of helium, overfishing...

 

[sails]

...I would personally consider the related issues of oil depletion, groundwater contamination from natural gas production, the multiple problems surrounding nuclear energy and the very real threat of war over oil and gas resources to be more worthy of attention than CO2 coming out of a coal-fired power plant. The whole AGW thing has achieved little other than to divert attention and resources away from the real energy, resource and environmental problems we face. Indeed by encouraging a shift toward gas for power generation it has actually made the resource problem worse rather than better.

And then there's soil degradation, toxic accumulation in the food chain, phosphate run-off (and phosphate resource depletion), running out of helium, overfishing...

Totally agree. There are far more concerning problems for the future without seeing billions of our dollars going offshore when we need our hard earned to stay in this country and to help finance our own problems.

After all, we are a country of around 22 million people. There is only so much the people can give away financially before we can no longer look after ourselves.

I can only think that those who are pro carbon tax are placed to gain financially from this tax. Perhaps they have bought up business overseas which will collect our taxpayer funds for their own benefit. I don't know, but nothing else makes much sense if one really wants the best for this country.

I know of a farmer who is not overly concerned with the tax as he said he will plant more trees and will make a motza on carbon credits. And what about Turnbull and his banking experience? Is he placed to make money from bid/ask spreads from banks and other carbon friendly businesses? I don't know the answer, but I wonder if those so in favour are positioned to make a lot of money (like Al Gore) if this carbon tax goes through.

If so, they will be taking money from hard working Aussies who may not be able to afford to heat their homes for their families. If this is so, I can only say shame on them.

 

[Knobby22]

Grea article in the Sunday Age today.

Conservatively speaking, the climate threat is real

Compares conservative parties around the world and who is for and agiast climate change action. Read the article here but summarising: http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...he-climate-threat-is-real-20110917-1kf5x.html

Conservative acting:
New Zealand John Keys National Party
Britain David Cameron Conservative Party
Germany Angela Merkal Christian Democratic Party
Sweden Moderate Party (in coalition)
France Nicholas Sarkozy and major party
Canada Conservative Party Steve Harper
South Korea - Grand National Party
Italy Sylvio Burlisconi

Against:
Australia LDP/Nat coalition
Czech Republic Vacly Klaus
US - Many of the Republicans especially tea party faction and possible President Rick Perry.

Personally if Rick Perry gets in he will be another George Bush II, I hope someone better knocks him off.

 

[Smurf1976]

What about those who are neither conservative nor taking action?

And what about those who have a policy of taking action but which are not actualy doing anything in practice?

And what about those who are reducing CO2 emissions by means of directly contributing to other environmental problems?

I wonder how many on this forum or in Australia generally realise that much of the woodchips controversially exported from this country are not used to produce pulp but rather, are fed straight into the boilers of Japanese power stations as a means of reducing CO2 emissions compared to using coal? As I've said many times, reducing CO2 emissions comes at a high price environmentally and is not something we ought to be doing unless we're damn sure it's necessary.

I wonder also just how many give a thought to where that merbau timber commonly used to build decks comes from and just how trashed the forests are really becoming? For that matter, I wonder to what extent there is any real knowledge of anything environmental in the general community other than what the media feeds them?

 

[Knobby22]

The point is that there are many Conservative parties around the world who are damn sure.

With regard to to the woodchips. This is a matter of governments formulation good policy. If we are willing to sell them then it should go to the highest bidder. If you against woodchips being made then that is an Australian resposibility. This goes for looking after our forests full stop which is what helped create the Greens.

I suppose you could say the Japanese conservative party is another example that has acted (through the Kyoto protocol).

 

[bellenuit]

Grea article in the Sunday Age today.

Conservatively speaking, the climate threat is real

Compares conservative parties around the world and who is for and agiast climate change action. Read the article here but summarising: http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...he-climate-threat-is-real-20110917-1kf5x.html

Conservative acting:
New Zealand John Keys National Party
Britain David Cameron Conservative Party
Germany Angela Merkal Christian Democratic Party
Sweden Moderate Party (in coalition)
France Nicholas Sarkozy and major party
Canada Conservative Party Steve Harper
South Korea - Grand National Party
Italy Sylvio Burlisconi

Against:
Australia LDP/Nat coalition
Czech Republic Vacly Klaus
US - Many of the Republicans especially tea party faction and possible President Rick Perry.

Personally if Rick Perry gets in he will be another George Bush II, I hope someone better knocks him off.

It couldn't be a well researched report. Australia's coalition are for taking action, but not via a carbon tax or ETS.

Perhaps they asked Bob Brown what the coalition's policy is, rather than ask the coalition themselves.

 

[sails]

The point is that there are many Conservative parties around the world who are damn sure.

With regard to to the woodchips. This is a matter of governments formulation good policy. If we are willing to sell them then it should go to the highest bidder. If you against woodchips being made then that is an Australian resposibility. This goes for looking after our forests full stop which is what helped create the Greens.

I suppose you could say the Japanese conservative party is another example that has acted (through the Kyoto protocol).

I thought Japan together with other countries doesn't plan to enter into a new Kyoto agreement in 2012. From the SMH:

DEAUVILLE, France: Russia, Japan and Canada told the G8 they would not join a second round of carbon cuts under the Kyoto Protocol at United Nations talks this year and the US reiterated it would remain outside the treaty, European diplomats have said.​

Read more: Kyoto deal loses four big nations

 

[sails]

...Conservative acting:
New Zealand John Keys National Party
Britain David Cameron Conservative Party
Germany Angela Merkal Christian Democratic Party
Sweden Moderate Party (in coalition)
France Nicholas Sarkozy and major party
Canada Conservative Party Steve Harper
South Korea - Grand National Party
Italy Sylvio Burlisconi

...

Knobby - I have a few questions...

1. Have these countries actually reduced co2 emissions or simply achieved a money-go-round where the worker is generallythe one ripped off?

2. Do these countries have reliable baseload power such as hydro, nuclear, etc?

3. Is this article actually comparing Australia with other comparable countries?

4. New Zealand emits about one tenth of Australia's co2 emissions. It seems nothing short of craziness that they would do this as Australia can probably only achieve a spit in the ocean of co2 reduction so NZ can achieve one tenth of a spit in the ocean reduction?

And NZ has hydro power.

I think we have to look at Australia on it's own merits and not try to keep up with other countries who have different resources to our own.

 

[Knobby22]

sails

I think the article speaks for itself but the point is that those countries are acting with conservative leaders. The lie that Australia is leading the world is just that.

Not that I fully agree wth the proposal Labor has come up with. It could have been done much better. I do agree with Combe though that once its in the Libs won't remove it though I am sure they will modify it.

 

[sails]

sails

I think the article speaks for itself but the point is that those countries are acting with conservative leaders. The lie that Australia is leading the world is just that.

Not that I fully agree wth the proposal Labor has come up with. It could have been done much better. I do agree with Combe though that once its in the Libs won't remove it though I am sure they will modify it.

Thanks for the reply Knobby. I had a quick read through the article and it didn't seem to address the questions - that's why I asked them. Perhaps someone else will have a go at them.

I don't understand why we are proceeding with this tax when there seem to be no evidence of co2 reduction in other countries which have priced carbon when they are adjusted to similar conditions we have in Australia and adjusted for economic variables. In fact, it's difficult to find any such data let alone adjusting it.

Strange...very strange.

It seems to be far more about the money than the environment from where I see it.