Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

[Julia]

*****

You know what? F### it! If it's insignificant, I'm going to become a squawker rather than a doer and drive to the bloody pub anyway! Why make my life hard when all the other squawkers are riding around in limousines?

I can afford the 4x4 and the petrol at $300 a barrel, so what the hell? Not even Al Bore gives a damn.

To be frank, its all BS. If the world is doomed, I'm going out in style.

Wayne, I believe your facetious comment above in actual fact represents the philosophy of much of the population.
And then there's another large group of people, myself included, who just don't know what to believe. I lack the scientific background to be able to properly evaluate all the screeds of urgings by both sides, and find that my innate suspicion of all things hysterical (which is what a lot of it comes across as to me) just turns me off.

Like many other things, e.g. fluoride, I am reminded of how powerless I am as an individual to have any say anyway, despite what I might believe.
So I just sigh and hope someone with wisdom sorts it all out.

It's a bit like the AA mantra about changing the things you can, accepting the things you can't, and having the wisdom to know the difference.

In the meantime, I hardly use my car, rarely fly, and have a green garden.

Keep walking to the pub. If nothing else, it's good for your health!

 

[wayneL]

Julia,

It was was only partly facetious. If there's anything I've learned in the last few years is this:

* Trying to do the right thing doesn't earn you any respect, and in fact engenders contempt, as detailed before and as evident in this thread.

* Shouting about AGW absolves you of any responsibility to actually do anything.

* Squawk about it enough (while actually doing nothing) and you might get great wads of cash thrown at you, a vast sycophantic following... and perhaps a coveted prize or two.

* If AGW is real (and I'm still doubtful of the A part), the measures as proposed by the powers that be are hopelessly inadequate anyway and won't make a jot of difference (and perhaps a lot worse).

I'll continue what I do, but it won't be for the benefit of the 90% of t0ssers, egomaniacal hypocrites, preachers and squawkers on this planet, but just because it's "right".

I scarcely ever go to the pub, but I'll be walking when I do.

 

[2020hindsight]

Wayne, even the Royals have their little hypocritical ways... (assuming Prince Charles will one day get to overrule mummy on how much cruising the QE2 does)

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..

This as posted by 123 on another thread

The vessel uses 18 tonnes of a fuel an hour, or 433 tonnes per day, with one gallon of fuel moving the ship 49ft 6ins.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/319027.stm

As Maxwell Smart would say "Missed it by that much"

Another way to cut down GW, how about just asking the US to fly 10% fewer sorties bombing innocents 2/3 rds of the time! Maybe just go to war a little less often. ( could have skipped Iraq anyway - that would account for about 3000 trillion walks to the pub - and some)

 

[wayneL]

Wayne, even the Royals have their little hypocritical ways... (assuming Prince Charles will one day get to overrule mummy on how much cruising the QE2 does)

But he's a messenger, so doesn't have to do anything.

 

[2020hindsight]

Here's another way to think of it.
Compare him with Bush.

You cannot see this film and not think of George W. Bush, the man who beat Gore in 2000. The contrast is stark. Gore -- more at ease in the lecture hall than he ever was on the stump -- summons science to tell a harrowing story and offers science as the antidote. No feat of imagination could have Bush do something similar -- even the sentences are beyond him.

But it is the thought that matters -- the application of intellect to an intellectual problem. Bush has been studiously anti-science, a man of applied ignorance who has undernourished his mind with the empty calories of comfy dogma. For instance, his insistence on abstinence as the preferred method of birth control would be laughable were it not so reckless.

It is similar to Bush's initial approach to global warming and his rejection of the Kyoto Protocol -- ideology trumping science. It may be that Gore will do more good for his country and the world with this movie than Bush ever did by beating him in 2000.

it is from this article... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/17/AR2006041701259.html
which starts with .... the blatantly hackneyed rhyme of "gore" and "bore" - must have been pointed out a few times over the years that one...

A Campaign Gore Can't Lose
By Richard Cohen
Tuesday, April 18, 2006; Page A19

Boring Al Gore has made a movie. It is on the most boring of all subjects -- global warming. It is more than 80 minutes long, and the first two or three go by slowly enough that you can notice that Gore has gained weight and that his speech still seems oddly out of sync. But a moment later, I promise, you will be captivated, and then riveted and then scared out of your wits. Our Earth is going to hell in a handbasket...
...........
The case Gore makes is worthy of sleepless nights: Our Earth is in extremis,

and that article concludes (warts and all here - so he's a know all ! - but we cannot afford for him to lose again ....

In the meantime, he is a man on a mission. Wherever he goes -- and he travels incessantly -- he finds time and an audience to deliver his (free) lecture on global warming. It and the film leave no doubt of the peril we face, nor do they leave any doubt that Gore, at last, is a man at home in his role. He is master teacher, pedagogue, know-it-all, smarter than most of us, better informed and, having tried and failed to gain the presidency, he has raised his sights to save the world. We simply cannot afford for Al Gore to lose again.

 

[2020hindsight]

But he's a messenger, so doesn't have to do anything.

Sure he has to do something.

little-known fact: Since his defeat by George W. Bush in 2000, Gore has traveled the globe with his bar graphs, staging event after event for small, invited audiences. Free of charge.

Most criticism he seems to get is that he flies between (free) lectures...
I mean (hellooo as Johnny Howard would say) - a lot of people fly these days.. and he has a message to spread - ...

As for him being a messanger - sure - and a bludy good one. in fact extraordinary. Leaving aside the science if you wish - but he gets a standing ovation every now and again .. (like at the launch of An Inconvenient Truth at Sundance Festival, potentially one of the most boring movie topics that could have been selected )...

This again from the washington post at the time (almost 2 years ago now)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/25/AR2006012502230.html

Al Gore, Sundance's Leading Man
'An Inconvenient Truth' Documents His Efforts To Raise Alarm on Effects of Global Warming
By William Booth
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 26, 2006; Page A01
PARK CITY, Utah -- Has ever a little indie film faced a greater hurdle? Imagine this sales pitch: Babe, it's a movie about global warming. Starring Al Gore. Doing a slide show.
With charts.
About "soil evaporation."
Improbable? Perhaps. So it's all the more amazing that "An Inconvenient Truth" had its world premiere at the Sundance Film Festival on Tuesday night before an enthusiastic audience that gave the former vice president and his movie a big standing O.

Among the film's lessons: Earth's glaciers are melting, the polar bears are screwed, each year sets new heat records. Al Gore sometimes flies coach. He also schleps his own bags.

The morning after his debut as leading man, Gore pronounces this whole Sundance thing "a most excellent time." He is wearing earth tones again. He seems jolly . He brought Tipper and the kids. He is attending parties and posing for pictures with his fans and enjoying macaroni and cheese at the Discovery Channel soiree. He's palling around with Larry David of "Curb Your Enthusiasm," who says, "Al is a funny guy." But he is also a very serious guy who believes humans may have only 10 years left to save the planet from turning into a total frying pan.

The core of the film is a one-man, ever-evolving multimedia slide show that Gore assembled himself. A little-known fact: Since his defeat by George W. Bush in 2000, Gore has traveled the globe with his bar graphs, staging event after event for small, invited audiences. Free of charge. And he's presented one version or another of this slide show, by his own estimation, a thousand times.

The official Sundance Film Festival guide calls the documentary a "gripping story" with "a visually mesmerizing presentation" that is "activist cinema at its very best."
........


It took some convincing. The slide show, she says, "was his baby, and he felt proprietary about it and it was hard for him to let go." Now, David says, the filmmakers are in discussion with three or four distributors, hoping for a sale.
"This isn't about box office," David says. "None of us are going to make a dime." What is at stake, she says, "is, you know, the planet."

 

[wayneL]

Most criticism he seems to get is that he flies between (free) lectures...
I mean (hellooo as Johnny Howard would say) - a lot of people fly these days.. and he has a message to spread - ...

Oh please! It's his whole lifestyle, including the houses... schlepps his own bags? dittums.

Propaganda

As for him being a messanger - sure - and a bludy good one.

I dispute that. There has been precisely nil net effect from the film, save a preponderance of no-action squawkers.

 

[2020hindsight]

well, if you claim he's a lousy communicator
then
I would say that you can't see the wood for the trees
but there won't be many of them left soon either which way,
so I guess that quote will become an anachronism as well.

Wayne
question
Is Aus signing up for Kyoto (starting to side with the europeans and putting pressure on the yanks to act) a good thing in your opinion?

You seem to be transfixed on whether one man lives in a big house or not !!

 

[professor_frink]

well- maybe we'll end up with two-headed aussies - and we can put our heads together and work it out
two heads better than none?

PS prof, I've told you a million times not to exagerate
The abs in NT have signed over a property for this use have they not (?) - maybe there was a final geological check (working on memory here)

Important that they don't have any leaching into the groundwater.

Yep. Quite important. And to this date, is unsolved. Finding somewhere that's stable enough geologically is the other big thing. But who really knows how much any area selected is going to move over the next 1000 years or so. What's a stable area today may not be in 500 years time.

Funnily enough, the link below mentions numbercruncher's idea of shooting it deep into space- that's how hard this stuff is to deal with. Sorry if I'm continuing to exaggerate in your eyes 2020, but IMO this is a problem that really needs to be dealt with before we run around screaming that we are killing the planet, and have to save 1/3 off our power generation emissions by building thousands of reactors that will possibly solve the short term solution, but create another problem that will still be with us 300+ generations from now.

http://library.thinkquest.org/17940/texts/nuclear_waste_storage/nuclear_waste_storage.html



Considering how dirty U mining is, and the overall net benefit of the entire process(mining through to the actual generation of electricity), it seems like a pretty bad deal for us as a country to be participating in things like Kyoto, when it puts us at a bit of a disadvantage. Most of the reactors in Europe were built before the world started caring about GW and the possible effects that man was having on the environment, so they have escaped on the emissions created from that part of the process- they can then let us pollute the planet via the emissions involved in trying to mine a substance that is only found in small amounts in any one area, then they can get the end benefit of the process, and it would appear that the preferred option for dealing with the long term problem of the waste is to give it back to us to deal with. So we do all of the polluting, countries like Lithuania get the benefit, and then we may have to deal with the problems they created. Sounds like a great way to go.

I've quoted this one umpteen times, but I once heard a prof saying "compared to effects of GW, Chernyobel will be a walk in the park"

hmmmm.

Option1- large scale renewables. An area can recover from a dam being built. Wind farms can be pulled down if required.

Option2- Create toxic waste that can kill and displace hundreds of thousands of people and will pollute the planet for thousands of years to reduce emissions by 1/3, when we don't even have enough of the stuff available to power the planet for any considerable length of time(and thank god for that too).

I know which direction I'd be going here.

Sorry 2020 if you feel I'm still exaggerating, but I don't think nuclear is particularly clean, or green, and I really hope that Kyoto, or any other agreement that comes after it doesn't force govt's into looking for short term solutions that just replace the current problem with another one.

 

[2020hindsight]

Yep. Quite important. And to this date, is unsolved. Finding somewhere that's stable enough geologically is the other big thing. But who really knows how much any area selected is going to move over the next 1000 years or so. What's a stable area today may not be in 500 years time.

Funnily enough, the link below mentions numbercruncher's idea of shooting it deep into space- that's how hard this stuff is to deal with. Sorry if I'm continuing to exaggerate in your eyes 2020, but IMO this is a problem that really needs to be dealt with before we run around screaming that we are killing the planet, and have to save 1/3 off our power generation emissions by building thousands of reactors that will possibly solve the short term solution, but create another problem that will still be with us 300+ generations from now.

http://library.thinkquest.org/17940/texts/nuclear_waste_storage/nuclear_waste_storage.html



Considering how dirty U mining is, and the overall net benefit of the entire process(mining through to the actual generation of electricity), it seems like a pretty bad deal for us as a country to be participating in things like Kyoto, when it puts us at a bit of a disadvantage. Most of the reactors in Europe were built before the world started caring about GW and the possible effects that man was having on the environment, so they have escaped on the emissions created from that part of the process- they can then let us pollute the planet via the emissions involved in trying to mine a substance that is only found in small amounts in any one area, then they can get the end benefit of the process, and it would appear that the preferred option for dealing with the long term problem of the waste is to give it back to us to deal with. So we do all of the polluting, countries like Lithuania get the benefit, and then we may have to deal with the problems they created. Sounds like a great way to go.




hmmmm.

Option1- large scale renewables. An area can recover from a dam being built. Wind farms can be pulled down if required.

Option2- Create toxic waste that can kill and displace hundreds of thousands of people and will pollute the planet for thousands of years to reduce emissions by 1/3, when we don't even have enough of the stuff available to power the planet for any considerable length of time(and thank god for that too).

I know which direction I'd be going here.

Sorry 2020 if you feel I'm still exaggerating, but I don't think nuclear is particularly clean, or green, and I really hope that Kyoto, or any other agreement that comes after it doesn't force govt's into looking for short term solutions that just replace the current problem with another one.

lol
when I said you were exaggerating , I used the word "exagerating" which is a lesser form thereof

I was referring to your two headed kangaroos of course.

And we already have those radioactive spills out there. So whether or not we go on to use the U ourselves, we are going to have to be aware of radioactivity , conceded.

I'm planning to do some more research on the resources of U in the world, plus coal, plus etc - see just how long we've got (probably wait for Smurf's assistance lol),

Mind you, damns make a lot of methane -
when it comes to hydro, maybe it's a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't (??)

I'll think about your post some more prof. But you are agreeing I think that we are already "up to our necks in nuclear industry" are you not?

 

[wayneL]

well, if you claim he's a lousy communicator
then
I would say that you can't see the wood for the trees
but there won't be many of them left soon either which way,

As last a real issue - deforrestation, but I digress.

Good communicator, wrong message.

Wayne
question
Is Aus signing up for Kyoto (starting to side with the europeans and putting pressure on the yanks to act) a good thing in your opinion?

Kyoto in its current form is BS, pure subterfuge. Won't do a thing.

You seem to be transfixed on whether one man lives in a big house or not !!

No, you miss the point altogether. I'm transfixed on leadership and the number of individuals who live in a big house or not.

Less squawking, more action.

 

[2020hindsight]

prof -
further to my previous part response
Other things to consider - a lot of "dirty" energy is required to make (the first set of) wind turbines - and nuclear stations - "breakeven" happens many years down the track .


since you mention stable areas for storage - Aus is a very stable tectonic plate (eg for storage of waste). Having said that , Newcastle went from lowest risk zone to highest in one day , just by having one decent EQ (but it has other problems, like deep soft geology which amplifies some frequencies which affect buildings of certain height etc ) .

Obviously you'd store the stuff with proper protection - including taking into account EQ.
- likewise nuclear stations should have concrete domes to protect against aircraft crashing into them.

Some in the USA were shown to be missing a lot of the reinforcement that should have gone into the concrete - and the construction inspectors living in big houses ( even bigger than Al Gore's but made by alternative sources )

prof - we are gonna lose the barrier reef in our (or our kid's) lifetime !!
Perhaps Wayne is right - why bother trying.

PS looking at that map - maybe Lithuania is just as stable as us lol

 

[2020hindsight]

It may be that Gore will do more good for his country and the world with this movie than Bush ever did by beating him in 2000

It may be that Gore will do more good for his country and the world with this movie than Bush ever did by beating him in 2000

It may be that Gore will do more good for his country and the world with this movie than Bush ever did by beating him in 2000

..........
sorry, just that I've been writing this on the wall a few hundred times
Probably the best thing Bush ever did for the planet was to swindle those Florida voters back in 2000

 

[wayneL]

It may be that Gore will do more good for his country and the world with this movie than Bush ever did by beating him in 2000

It may be that Gore will do more good for his country and the world with this movie than Bush ever did by beating him in 2000

It may be that Gore will do more good for his country and the world with this movie than Bush ever did by beating him in 2000

..........
sorry, just that I've been writing this on the wall a few hundred times
Probably the best thing Bush ever did for the planet was to swindle those Florida voters back in 2000

Oh Lord, where's my chunder bucket? Your in love with Al Bore m8.

Big Al has done nothing substantive for the planet at all. A movie does nothing.

 

[professor_frink]

prof -
further to my previous part response
Other things to consider - a lot of "dirty" energy is required to make (the first set of) wind turbines - and nuclear stations - "breakeven" happens many years down the track .


since you mention stable areas for storage - Aus is a very stable tectonic plate (eg for storage of waste). Having said that , Newcastle went from lowest risk zone to highest in one day , just by having one decent EQ (but it has other problems, like deep soft geology which amplifies some frequencies which affect buildings of certain height etc ) .

Obviously you'd store the stuff with proper protection - including taking into account EQ.
- likewise nuclear stations should have concrete domes to protect against aircraft crashing into them.

Some in the USA were shown to be missing a lot of the reinforcement that should have gone into the concrete - and the construction inspectors living in big houses ( even bigger than Al Gore's but made by alternative sources )

prof - we are gonna lose the barrier reef in our (or our kid's) lifetime !!
Perhaps Wayne is right - why bother trying.

I'm not concerned about where it should be stored- I don't think we should create it in the first place. In regards to Newcastle being a suitable storage area before the quake- being a novocastrian, if that little quake means I won't ever have to live near radioactive waste, then I'll be a happy man.

Yes, dirty energy is required to make turbines. No radioactive waste afterwards though.

I don't think Wayne is saying don't bother trying. Perhaps you should go back and read his posts again. He's advocating action on an individual level. I agree with that. If enough people start consuming less, then the battle will be quite a bit easier on a global scale. We could get the same end benefit of going nuclear by simply using less electricity, and won't have the problem of dealing with the waste. Combine that with a move towards renewables and we can make a big difference. Whether that saves the GBR I don't know. But if individuals continue to consume more and more, then the world will be in trouble. Why you have decided to disagree with people wanting to take action on an individual level is beyond me

I quite like how you end you posts with those little emotive statements. You make it look like I don't care what happens to the GBR. This has been a typical response from you in this thread when someone doesn't agree 100% on AGW. I'm sure you have your reasons for doing so, but IMO doesn't really help your case that much. Does make me look bad though! But oh well. I'll just have to continue to ride my pushbike to the pub(walking takes too long for me......and a man's not a camel:drink instead of trying to change the entire world at once.

 

[numbercruncher]

We need bubblevision to embrace and promote action to get somewhere, to popularise personal action ......

We need all those charactors (love them or loath them) of modern pop culture , reaching out and spreading the message to the sheeples !

If the masses see Paris Hilton driving a Prius etc itll shift momentum imho!

Popularising personal action combined with Government legislation has surely got to be the way to go, and asap, before the tide comes in

 

[wayneL]

We need bubblevision to embrace and promote action to get somewhere, to popularise personal action ......

We need all those charactors (love them or loath them) of modern pop culture , reaching out and spreading the message to the sheeples !

If the masses see Paris Hilton driving a Prius etc itll shift momentum imho!

Popularising personal action combined with Government legislation has surely got to be the way to go, and asap, before the tide comes in

Exactly.

Seems to be Buckley's chance of that at the moment though.

 

[2020hindsight]

1. I'm not concerned about where it should be stored- I don't think we should create it in the first place. In regards to Newcastle being a suitable storage area before the quake- being a novocastrian, if that little quake means I won't ever have to live near radioactive waste, then I'll be a happy man.

2. Yes, dirty energy is required to make turbines. No radioactive waste afterwards though.

3. I don't think Wayne is saying don't bother trying. Perhaps you should go back and read his posts again. He's advocating action on an individual level. I agree with that. If enough people start consuming less, then the battle will be quite a bit easier on a global scale.

4. We could get the same end benefit of going nuclear by simply using less electricity, and won't have the problem of dealing with the waste. Combine that with a move towards renewables and we can make a big difference. Whether that saves the GBR I don't know.

5. But if individuals continue to consume more and more, then the world will be in trouble.

6. Why you have decided to disagree with people wanting to take action on an individual level is beyond me

7. I quite like how you end you posts with those little emotive statements. You make it look like I don't care what happens to the GBR. This has been a typical response from you in this thread when someone doesn't agree 100% on AGW. I'm sure you have your reasons for doing so, but IMO doesn't really help your case that much. Does make me look bad though! But oh well. I'll just have to continue to ride my pushbike to the pub(walking takes too long for me......and a man's not a camel:drink instead of trying to change the entire world at once.

ok - lol I seem to have attracted the ire of multiple mods here, so may be pushing my luck to comment
but buga it, my god (mother nature) wants me to have a go, so here goes....

1. well Newcastle will presumably win from investment in clean coal technology ( there I remain to be convinced of its effectiveness, but I hope I'm wrong) - I also do work with the coalfields in the Hunter, albeit peripheral.

2. and no co2 either way , wind or nuclear

3. If you're saying Wayne's comment was a hypothetical, then so was mine I guess:-
Wayne :- If the world is doomed, I'm going out in style
Julia :- I believe your facetious comment above in actual fact represents .. much of the population.
Wayne:- It was only partly facetious.
2020:- perhaps Wayne is right. why bother trying
i.e. I'm agreeing with his hypothetical

Of course I believe in action on an individual level. I agree entirely with Wayne and you here

Where I seem to disagree is that I think such efforts should include (but obviously not limited to) writing about it on public forums.

- and showing public support for any and all positives including Kyoto, however small a step they may be.

"spruking / squawking" whatever seems to cause some around here concern.
(I assume squaw-king is an american indian term ?)

And Bali is a small step I concede - As I mentioned on the poetry thread, Bali is just "the first Penny in the wishing well". but better than nothing, and a quantum leap from JHoward's attitude.

4. I hope you are right - that a combination of "demand management" and renewables can do it alone without nuclear. Just that I suspect that one day (probably not in my lifetime) nuclear will be a no-choice option.

5. agreed - we need individuals to use less. We also need fewer individuals. Meanwhile we continue to have "one for him, one for her, and one for the country" - ---- while China tries to restrain people to just having one (end of story). Lets talk about talk vs action .

6. I don't disagree with people wanting to take action on an individual level. I disagree with them finding fault with people talking about the criticality, the urgency, and )finding fault with) the people who are bringing this to our attention, including Al Gore with all his minor "inconsistencies" .

7. emotive statements. ok - that we are gonna lose the barrier reef. m8 , I was being generous when I said it might be in our children's time. It will probably happen in ours.

IF it doesn't (and I doubt that we can save it), then Al Gore and other squawkers will have achieved a miracle. Agreed? - I mean would anything have happened if not for his movie?

Prof Oppenheimer seems to think that the IPCC could not have done it without Al Gore's active assistance ?

 

[wayneL]

ok - lol I seem to have attracted the ire of multiple mods here, so may be pushing my luck to comment
but buga it, my god (mother nature) wants me to have a go, so here goes....

Just a point, this discussion has nothing to do with moderation. I, and I'm 100% sure Professor Frink, are discussing this purely in the capacity of a normal contributer to the forum.

We are only concerned as Mods if the Code of Conduct is breeched.

 

[2020hindsight]

Wayne
Suppose a man with a big house on the hill tells you that

a) people in coastal shacks (all over the world) are in peril, and
b) other critters, forests, oceans etc are in peril, and
c) that for every tonne of CO2 he generates in telling people this, he achieves two tonne of reduction

do you ignore him on a) and b) because you doubt c).

PS I'm not saying he's perfect, just that he echieves a nett benefit.