This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

What do you think of global warming?

  • There is no reliable evidence that indicates global warming (GW)

    Votes: 8 5.2%

  • There is GW, but the manmade contribution is UNPROVEN (brd),- and we should ignore it

    Votes: 12 7.8%

  • Ditto - but we should act to reduce greenhouse gas effects anyway

    Votes: 46 30.1%

  • There is GW, the manmade contribution is PROVEN (brd), and the matter is not urgent

    Votes: 6 3.9%

  • Ditto but corrective global action is a matter of urgency

    Votes: 79 51.6%

  • Other (plus reasons)

    Votes: 7 4.6%
  • Total voters
    153
Jump to new
Scuba said:
"Rip it's horns off, shave it, wipe it's "R"ss, show it a photo of a lit match, and put it on the plate!".
Click to expand...
hi scuba , completely :topic this one ...
reminds me ...
When I lived in HK (for 5 years way back when I was single), I used to go to the markets for meat sometimes. They used to butcher the animals (cattle pigs) in a carpark at Stanley on HK Island. Anyway you know what the Chinese are like, don't waste a damned thing - even eat the pigs entrails , crisp - often the menu comes out a bit wrong - "breakable pig's enteritis" for instance..

Anyway to get back to the story, I thought I'd try some Ox tail soup (like mum used to make lol). - So I finally communicated to this bloke in broken Chinese that I'd like to buy an ox tail - finally he gets the message, - then he gets this strange look as if I'm crazy - walks over to this big vat of "leftovers" - rolld up his sleeve, reaches in (with his nose plugged), pulls out a tail still with hairy hide, and completely covered in ****, and says incredulously " you want buy THIS!!"

"On second thoughts", I exclaimed apologetically, "I think I've changed my mind ......." ...
 
Well let's reduce CO2. As others have said, the risk is not worth taking by not doing something. I'm a skeptic over the anthropomorphic bit of GW, nevertheless I'm doing all I can reasonably do and still live in a society... much more than those bleating on about it.

My focus is on pollution. By focussing solely on co2, folks are missing the bigger picture of pollution in general. I don't know whether we are heating up the planet, but I know we are raping, pillaging and poisoning it. If we're not careful the planet will not heat up, but will still end up uninhabitable.

A bigger picture is needed IMO.
 
I think some members need a little more info about the subject so...just doing this because any action taken by govts will be under Kyoto framework and Kyoto2 treaty will just be a continuation (with adjustments) of the original Kyoto treaty.

There are 6 greenhouse gases under Kyoto Treaty and different quantity's of these gases are given different values.

carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, HFCs, and PFCs

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
http://unfccc.int/kyoto_protocol/items/2830.php

Greenhouse gases are components of the atmosphere that contribute to the greenhouse effect. Without the greenhouse effect the Earth would be uninhabitable;[1] in its absence, the mean temperature of the earth would be about -19 °C (-2 °F, 254 K) rather than the present mean temperature of about 15 °C (59 °F, 288 K)[2]. Greenhouse gases include in the order of relative abundance water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone. The majority of greenhouse gases come mostly from natural sources but are also contributed to by human activity.
 

Yup. Agreed.

The argument about climate change and the human impact, to me, represents problems within inductivist arguments as a whole. You will never know for sure until after the fact.

I don't know if we are causing climate change (I voted that way), but not doing something about it is akin to telling a cancer patient we aren't going to do anything for them, because we don't know what caused it. It is simply non-sensical.

The arguments from the economic side of things, that cutting CO2 emissions are not viable, to me, is a joke over the long term. We know we are at, or already past the peak oil curve, so the majority of fuel costs are going to become incredibly high over the next few years. Reducing CO2 emissions and reducing energy input costs are going to become synonymous in the next business cycle, and the more we can think like that, the better off our economy will be in the future.

For anyone sceptical of climate change, I don't think you are going to be continuing to hold that position position into the future. Certainly, environmentalists have had many of their predictions found wrong, but on the macro scale i.e. CFC's and peak oil, they have been very correct.

I urge anyone who hasn't already done so, to pay for a small amount of their power with the green energy option. Especially here in WA. I think you can pay as little as $10 per bill, and most people here could easily afford it. It is all audited, and there aren't any holes. It would make a massive difference.
 
Got me rolling again, priceless! Have a really funny email on Chinese english somewhere (yes, off top. but....)...
 
Just cut out virtually all forms of packaging and Australia will have done its bit towards reducing global warming in one fell swoop.
 
Scuba said:
"lucrative baby bonus"
Click to expand...

Sarcastic comment.

As to shoes, you can buy larger adult sizes when on super special and wait for kid to catch up (this is supposed to be funny comment).

Sorry for not being socially correct.
 
Scuba said:
The results of being wrong could be catastrophic for all our descendants, even life on Earth...
Click to expand...


This is it though - I mean just go worst case scenario each way..

Worst case scenario that the scientists are wrong and global warming isn't a problem etc - mainly economic losses from lost opportunities, capacity etc.

Worst case scenario and the scientists are right - and we may all go the way of the dinosaurs or atleast a significant % of humanity and other lifeforms on the planet.

I'd be happy to take a risk on the first one but WHY would you want to risk the latter?????????

Is a real no brainer.

Alas we've no real leadership on this matter as our pollies are all too busy trying to keep their populations happy by not taking the hard steps needed!!!

Future generations will look back on them and also us as a disgrace for not acting more urgently.
 
Happy said:
As to shoes, you can buy larger adult sizes when on super special and wait for kid to catch up (this is supposed to be funny comment).
Click to expand...
And that's the other thing I'm doing to contribute.
I leave my shoes on 24/7.
I took em off the other day, and even the dog left the room.
Trouble is my shoes are starting to turn green - from the inside out.

Nikko - spot on - this is where every nation needs to show its true moral credentials. Enough of the USA/ AUS lead selfishness "stuff the rest of you, and/or future generations of all countries (including ourselves), we refuse to give up one ounce of our quality of life or economic wealth for the good of the world". I think this could be who/whom Dawkins was arguably referring to in his book "The Selfish Gene"
 

I agree, by and large. Also, many of the measures needed to address climate change are changes that are necessary for other reasons. A couple of examples. We seem to have past peak oil (as chops mentioned) or are, at least, very close to it. So moves to alternate energy for transport need to occur regardless. The clearing of another finite resource, the large forests of Indonesia, South America and so on also needs to be curtailed for reasons of biodiversity and all the benefits that entails. Clean urban air is also desirable and the list goes on...and on.
On a personal front, I've been doing my bit. I've been powering my computer from methane from the dunny. Unfortunately, the system is prone to some unfortunate byproduct and explains why my posts can be a bit crappy.
 


On the positive side, in 5 billion years our Sun will expand, gobble up our planet or at least cook it (very severe case of global warming).

Then Sun will collapse; become lifeless dwarf and our solar system will become very cold and why argue about the end?

If it is only a matter of time.
 
hey happy - lol - I realise you are taking the piss - but ... 17 seconds !! verses another 12 hours !! - (details follow)


Five (5) billion years is a long time, especially when the church reckons we've only been here 6000 years - sheesh

But using scientifically sensible estimates like 4.8 billion since earth was made (a la most scientists) compares pretty close with 5 billion - so the sun is "middle aged"

i.e. The clock has been around once (through 12 hours) - and has another 12 to go.

Don't forget man only turned up 17 seconds to midday :2two cents

You'd have to conclude he's not a very good caretaker.

Or of course you can argue like this bloke I guess....
:bonk: :silly:

Cardinal Pell says in the past, pagans sacrificed animals and even humans in vain attempts to placate the gods but today they demand a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • earth clock.jpg
    35.3 KB · Views: 285
I do not have problems with combating global warming.

I am more for human population reduction and sustainable reduced production rather than ever increasing one, less hungry energy needs too.

I am one of those who will put jumper on before put heater on, but I am accused of being tight rather than thoughtful of my footprint.
 
Here`s a good one to sink your teeth into,


and a summary of what is happening in our own backyard, from the Australian government

ps... i don`t know whether the supermarket waste statistics are better or worse in Australia but i bet they are higher than anywhere, especially meat at "inflated" prices not being bought.
 
IMO the problem here is far too much simplistic thinking. That and too much outright nonsense too.

It's to the point of outright brainwashing in many cases. One classic example is the recently popular claim that water tanks will fight climate change - outright rubbish and it could be argued that the reverse is true.

And we never seem to do a proper analysis. For example, another one of the "easy" things to help the planet is the ban on plastic shopping bags. Smurf has a question however - what effect will this have on car use and CO2 emissions? I'm thinking they will probably rise and certainly not fall. No more impulse purchases as you walk through the city at lunchtime - now it's far easier to just bring the car in on the weekend. Lots of examples like that but no analysis was ever done, or if it was then it was buried along with the bags.

Then we get things like the light bulb ban. I'll give you a guarantee here - 12 months after it is implemented, electricity use will have gone up, not down. Consumers won't be replacing that 100 Watt bulb in the kitchen with a 20 W fluoro used for the same time. Nope. They'll either get a 30 W fluoro and leave it on all day or, more likely, they'll install those energy guzzling halogen downlights instead. Just look at how many lounge rooms have 300 - 500 Watts of those things installed but still aren't very bright. But nobody had 5 x 100 W bulbs before.

And of course while we meddle with bags, bulbs and other token gestures, we ignore the hard reality. Aviation is excluded from most proposals to cut emissiosns and yet (1) it's the fastest growing source of CO2 and (2) it will in itself exceed the "safe" emissions level by the middle of the century based on most forecasts.

Great, I'll have to get rid of that nasty 100 W bulb in the ceiling fan light (fluoro won't fit otherwise it would have gone already). Then I'll step outside (in order to see...) and notice 200,000 Watt gas guzzlers parked all up and down the street. Yep, that 100 Watts is really going to make all the difference and save the world...

In short, outright nonsense most of it. Global warming is real IMO but we're doing nothing serious about it. All the "feel good" stuff, Kyoto included, is just that. Gives that warm and fuzzy feeling whilst doing basically nothing about the problem.

Only way we'll get real action IMO is if some clean technology does it on economic grounds alone and/or peak oil and peak gas smacks us in the face somewhat harder than most are expecting.
 
Also fastest growing economies are excluded from Kyoto.

Few years down the track, voters who lost jobs because of hasty signature will probably vote for Liberals to get the job back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

  • Poll
Poll on Action on Global Warming
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
11K
2020hindsight
  • Poll
Terminal Triangle: Peak Oil, climate change and global economic meltdown
Replies
7
Views
6K
Smurf1976
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...