Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

[--B--]

was a bit rushed when I sent that one
just that I was busy sending a container of manufactured goods to China.

but rest assured, I walked rather than drove whenever I could.

its quite amusing watching you debate an issue and then shrink away and throw in a few jokes when challenged to cover up the fact that you, as wayne put it, are full of hot air.

 

[--B--]

As for al gore you obviously don't have a high oppinion of him but i hope you can agree that he has done more for GW awareness then any other person in the world. His movie probably single handedly made GW an issue in australia and probably led to more agressive environmental policy in this country then otherwise would have been. Thats surely more then just doing his bit regardless of his personal life.

sure,. its amazing what lies and deception can do to hype up a 'cause'.

and its even easier to get the masses on board when they dont have the time or inclination to research the material on such an issue.

 

[numbercruncher]

[edit] Political pressure on scientists


Many climate scientists state that they are put under enormous pressure to distort or hide any scientific results which suggest that human activity is to blame for global warming. A survey of climate scientists which was reported to the US House Oversight and Government Reform Committee noted that "Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change', 'global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of communications." These scientists were pressured to tailor their reports on global warming to fit the Bush administration's climate change scepticism. In some cases, this occurred at the request of a former oil-industry lobbyist.[165]

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

 

[--B--]

lol. a wiki page titled 'the global warming controversy'

wow. im convinced.

 

[numbercruncher]

So youll believe a so called 400 Scientists from a bush administration paper yet Ignore groups like the UN and G8 and virtually every government on the planet ? we really dont have much more to discuss on the subject then do we ? no use trying to convince the unconvincable ! Even Dubbya is backdooring you with his fully green tech ranch ......

 

[--B--]

So youll believe a so called 400 Scientists from a bush administration paper yet Ignore groups like the UN and G8 and virtually every government on the planet ? we really dont have much more to discuss on the subject then do we ? no use trying to convince the unconvincable ! Even Dubbya is backdooring you with his fully green tech ranch ......

no numbercruncher. im not convinced either way, simply presenting evidence that there really is no scientific consensus as many claim and that there is clearly more to the debate that the reports generated by the IPCC.

to simply disregard the opinions of these scientists because the paper comes from the US senate, yet treat as gospel the findings of the green backed IPCC is quite hypocritical.

 

[billhill]

B get over yourself. Your aggressive stance against anyone who criticises your points really smacks of a childish and immature way to debate this issue and i'm quite sick of it. My point is that your report is tainted by the oil interests that back the man who's office released it and presumably commissioned it. Fossil fuel interest have a known history of stifling the GW debate in dishonest and deceitful ways. I never said the report wasn't valid. However i trust its contents less then i otherwise would have if no oil interests had been involved. others have a right to know this information so don't get angry because your precious little report isn't as sqeaky clean as you think.

 

[--B--]

B get over yourself. Your aggressive stance against anyone who criticises your points really smacks of a childish and immature way to debate this issue and i'm quite sick of it.

my intention is not to come across aggressive. however when no one raises a valid point except to point out the the report comes from the US etc etc its quite difficult to debate.

My point is that your report is tainted by the oil interests that back the man who's office released it and presumably commissioned it. Fossil fuel interest have a known history of stifling the GW debate in dishonest and deceitful ways. I never said the report wasn't valid. However i trust its contents less then i otherwise would have if no oil interests had been involved. others have a right to know this information so don't get angry because your precious little report isn't as sqeaky clean as you think.

fair enough and i apologise if ive come across aggressive

as i asked earlier, do you hold the same scepticism about reports backed by green groups such as those released by the IPCC?

 

[numbercruncher]

It seems everthing now a days should be viewed with a certain amount of scepticism, but the Bush administration is about the only Government clinging to this GW doesnt exist theory, hell state Governments all over the US have accepted it and started acting - Climate change costs everyone eventuallly, one way or another. I can certainly understand the US fear from a financial perspective, they are already faltering and being forced to reduce their carbon footprint could possibly be the straw that breaks the camels back.

But surely peopel can put 2 and 2 together, the only Country (or Government more precisely) denying Climate change , dragging their feet at Bali are also the ones producing this report, Id give the report the respect it deserves if it was produced by anyone except the Bush administration because it clearly fits their agenda and position of denial.

 

[--B--]

It seems everthing now a days should be viewed with a certain amount of scepticism, but the Bush administration is about the only Government clinging to this GW doesnt exist theory, hell state Governments all over the US have accepted it and started acting - Climate change costs everyone eventuallly, one way or another. I can certainly understand the US fear from a financial perspective, they are already faltering and being forced to reduce their carbon footprint could possibly be the straw that breaks the camels back.]

if catastrophic climate change is in fact a myth its not going to cost anyone excelt the gullible idiots pouring billions into the 'cause'.

But surely peopel can put 2 and 2 together, the only Country (or Government more precisely) denying Climate change , dragging their feet at Bali are also the ones producing this report, Id give the report the respect it deserves if it was produced by anyone except the Bush administration because it clearly fits their agenda and position of denial.

do you think those governments pushing the GW barrow and investing billions into it are going to go to the trouble to compile reports from 400 scientists who dispute the IPCC claims?

 

[billhill]

apologie accepted. Obviously all information that is backed by by interest groups has got to be viewed with some scepticism and this certainly includes green groups, some of which i admit go over the top. However in saying this Green groups are not businesses or corporations with massive financial risks at play with most acting on what they beleive to be moral issues so IMO have less of an interest in reporting biased information. I admit that as so called green companies gain more power and influence we shall see biased reports backed by them for their own self interests just as oil and gas do. However at the moment these interest groups are dwarfed in their influence of legislators and the like when compared to the fossil fuels industry. Basically this makes me more inclined to believe what a green group says about the environment rather then an oil corporation.

 

[--B--]

apologie accepted. Obviously all information that is backed by by interest groups has got to be viewed with some scepticism and this certainly includes green groups, some of which i admit go over the top. However in saying this Green groups are not businesses or corporations with massive financial risks at play with most acting on what they beleive to be moral issues so IMO have less of an interest in reporting biased information. I admit that as so called green companies gain more power and influence we shall see biased reports backed by them for their own self interests just as oil and gas do. However at the moment these interest groups are dwarfed in their influence of legislators and the like when compared to the fossil fuels industry. Basically this makes me more inclined to believe what a green group says about the environment rather then an oil corporation.

ok i can respoect where youre coming from however i do disagree.

i think green groups push their agendas at all cost because without doing so they will not exist. they have billions at stake in funding and to think this does not represent a risk is quite incorrect imo.

im not disputing oil companies have a lot at stake however i do not treat green groups any more or less scepticism. it seems many are willing to give the green groups the benefit of the doubt simply because they see green = good and business = bad.

 

[numbercruncher]

if catastrophic climate change is in fact a myth its not going to cost anyone excelt the gullible idiots pouring billions into the 'cause'.

Yet the Trillion dollars poured into Iraq by Bush and the other NeoCons to shore up the oil reserves was a good investment ?

Ironically that would of been enough to make the US virtually fully Green with little or no need for ME oil ..... could bet your bottom dollar they would of then been the staunchest supporters of Kyoto

Funny old world eh ?

 

[billhill]

ok i can respoect where youre coming from however i do disagree.

i think green groups push their agendas at all cost because without doing so they will not exist. they have billions at stake in funding and to think this does not represent a risk is quite incorrect imo.

im not disputing oil companies have a lot at stake however i do not treat green groups any more or less scepticism. it seems many are willing to give the green groups the benefit of the doubt simply because they see green = good and business = bad.

Yes B these points are very valid. Green groups do indeed have alot at stake as well and it angers me when i see groups resorting to deceitful tactics often when militant greenies hijack them. There are however alot of sincere green groups that do act in a sensible way and therfore can be considered of greater moral integrety then an oil or gas company. After all generally Green groups = acting in the interests of the environment Business = acting in the interests of their shareholders.

 

[numbercruncher]

Learnt something else today, China emits more c02 than the US @!

China has overtaken the US as the biggest producer of carbon dioxide, a development that will increase anxiety about its role in driving man-made global warming and will add to pressure on the world's politicians to reach an agreement on climate change that includes the Chinese economy.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/jun/20/china.carbonemissions

 

[2020hindsight]

sorry to disappoint you but i didnt vote as you suggested.

-B-
From a previous post where I accused you of contradicting yourself.

Now I realise you are far too cunning to fall for that, lol - you choose to differentiate between
a) whether you agree / agreed to act on climate change / reducing pollution;
and
b) whether you actually posted a vote in this insignificant little corner of the world.

 

[2020hindsight]

Learnt something else today, China emits more c02 than the US @!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2007/jun/20/china.carbonemissions

View attachment 16124

nc, That photo reminds me of a quote by Ayn Rand (US novelist - ironically she wrote "Atlas Shrugged" )

Ayn Rand ........Here's what she said about pollution:- back in the 60's granted - but we are reaping the rewards today ...

"If it were true that a heavy concentration of industry is destructive to human life, one would find life expectancy declining in the more advanced countries. But it has been rising steadily. Here are the figures on life expectancy in the United States:
1900 - 47.3 years
1920 - 53 years
1940 - 60 years
1968 - 70.2 years (the latest figures compiled [as of January 1971])
Anyone over 30 years of age today, give a silent "Thank you" to the nearest, grimiest, sootiest smokestacks you can find.-- Ayn Rand, "The Anti-Industrial Revolution," The New Left: the Anti-Industrial Revolution

btw, adjusted for population.... per capita , USA 24.3 tonnes , China 3.9 tonnes

 

[numbercruncher]

She needed to sell her smoke stacks !

If the truth be known, small pox vax, penicillin etc jumped human lifespans ......


Ever done your family tree ? Im back about 500 years on mine, people lived into 60s plus all the time in my tree, 1841 census ggggggggdaddy was still working his Business as a master wheelwright at age 75 ! ...im not doubting these "average" lifespans, I think genetics plays a role and more so medicine, and lastly smokestacks


oh, Australians are the worst c02 polluters per capita on the planet ..... tsk tsk (but climate change doesnt distinguish who does it!)

 

[chops_a_must]

But is anyone acting on it? Not from what I see.

What are you doing 20?

I've already stated that people can choose green power on their energy bills from as little as $10 a bill, and encouraged people to do so. Most people here could easily afford it. If I earn enough money from trading in the near future, I will buy a Prius, as my job forces me to drive whether I like it or not.

oh ffs.

i suppose you hold the same reservations of any pro-GW reports you read? or is it only the ones who cast doubt on the GW debate that are possible open to bias?

you pick out one guy with a link to the EVIL oil and cite this as a reason to doubt the content of the report.

the fact is 400 credible scientists have put forward these views and have raised valid point which many (including yourself it seems) wil happily ignore because it doesnt fit in with the hype and catastrophe you all cheer about.

So what was your opinion of the CSIRO scientist/s who got sacked/ forced to resign for questioning the Howard stance on scientific grounds?

Unfortunately for the warming deniers, green groups have quite a good track record when it comes to energy calls. It's pretty rare, but I share something in common with some of those nut job right wingers in the US, including that creep Kudlow. They just call it energy independence...

 

[wayneL]

Wayne i don't understand the criticisms you have towards al gore and other GW activists. You seem to take on a position that everyone who is concerned about GW needs to "walk to the pub". Sure things like this set a good example and hopefully over time culture and behaviour will change. But expecting all individuals to take the resposibilty is unrealistic. People are concerned but many have too much else on their plate to really concentrate on doing much themselves about it. Hence why people would rather allow legislators to do it for them. That way they are doing their bit and don't have to think about it along the way. Why don't people do anything about GW individually, the same reason people don't quit smoking. Its psychological and its ingrained in us through evolution.

As for al gore you obviously don't have a high oppinion of him but i hope you can agree that he has done more for GW awareness then any other person in the world. His movie probably single handedly made GW an issue in australia and probably led to more agressive environmental policy in this country then otherwise would have been. Thats surely more then just doing his bit regardless of his personal life.

Bill,

People follow examples not instructions. People of substantial means (those with the biggest carbon footprint) all believe something should be done, just not by them. Poorer people see this and think, what's the point?

On this issue, we need leaders of action, not waffle (and largely discredited waffle at that).

One example is Prince Charles: Admittedly his is hugely larger than the average punter, but he is doing a lot publicly for the environment, people are following to an extent in this country.

If people see the Al Bores actually doing something, personally, they will take it a lot more seriously.

Until then it's all hot air (and money making).