Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

[The Ferret]

Population growth is critical. All this talk about over population and that we can't sustain higher populations is rubbish.

Here in AU especially, it's critical we lift the rate of population growth (via reproduction).

 

[2020hindsight]

Population growth is critical. All this talk about over population and that we can't sustain higher populations is rubbish.

Here in AU especially, it's critical we lift the rate of population growth (via reproduction).

Kyoto? IF AGW is real.... pffft.... Too little, too late.

ferret
So to summarise whether we should have signed Kyoto

Wayne says too little too late (with qualifications)
I say better than nothing
you say ( I presume) too much too early?

And now you think that the world is not becoming overpopulated?
your opinion of course

 

[The Ferret]

...And now you think that the world is not becoming overpopulated?
....

The world is far from overpopulated..... quite the opposite in fact.

 

[explod]

The world is far from overpopulated..... quite the opposite in fact.

Thats true but we are a very messy crowd and do not like eating our vegetables. So unless we start to show some restrain and disipline then we have a problem with the population.

 

[2020hindsight]

The world is far from overpopulated..... quite the opposite in fact.

ferret
forget the 7% of Aussies who agree with you on global warming ..
I'm guessing you're one of about 2% of the world's population who believe that .

 

[The Ferret]

ferret
forget the 7% of Aussies who agree with you on global warming ..
I'm guessing you're one of about 2% of the world's population who believe that .

I form my opinions on the basis of what I have read, researched and after considering the merits of all arguements.... not on whether other people agree with me or what the majority may or may not believe.

The "7% of aussies who agree with me on GW".... can you provide me with the details of where this "7%" figure comes from? Or did you just pull that number out of the air?

 

[wayneL]

ferret
forget the 7% of Aussies who agree with you on global warming ..
I'm guessing you're one of about 2% of the world's population who believe that .

Whenever I see that a small minority believe something in contrary to the masses, I want to know what they know that the masses don't.

Don't fall for the "Appeal to Widespread Belief" fallacy. Science only please.

 

[The Ferret]

I'm having visions of 2020 furiously scouring the internet searching for any meaningful report, study or poll that mentions "7%".... lol

 

[2020hindsight]

I form my opinions on the basis of what I have read, researched and after considering the merits of all arguements.... not on whether other people agree with me or what the majority may or may not believe.

The "7% of aussies who agree with me on GW".... can you provide me with the details of where this "7%" figure comes from? Or did you just pull that number out of the air?

I'm having visions of 2020 furiously scouring the internet searching for any meaningful report, study or poll that mentions "7%".... lol

http://au.news.yahoo.com/080310/21/163ss.html
Most Australians support Kyoto: poll

A new poll has found that 7 per cent of Australians still oppose Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's act to ratify the Kyoto protocol to cut greenhouse gas emissions.


The survey of 1,200 people found 64 per cent supported the move, but 29 per cent were still undecided.


Today Australia becomes an official member of the Kyoto club after the initial ratification documents were lodged with the United Nations 90 days ago.


John Connor from the Climate Institute says the poll also found that three-quarters of Australians think the Federal Government should take stronger action.


"The Government should be encouraged by these numbers to keep moving forward with even bolder and more decisive steps, if they really accept the argument of Professor Garnaut, for example, that Australia has more to lose than other developed countries in cutting greenhouse pollution," he said.

"There's emphatic support for Australian governments to lead."

gee whiz ferret, for such an enlightened person, ... you must have missed this one.

PS I've been watching Newstopia btw.

PS apology accepted

 

[The Ferret]

Ha!! lol. Ripper...

1) A poll of 1200 people out of 20+ million?? This is your standard of proof? No wonder you fall for the myth. Also, was this poll commissioned by "The Climate Institute"?
2) You, like many, many others have been hoodwinked by a flash, impressive name... "The Climate Institute". It's always interesting to see spokesfolk from "The Climate Institute" appearing in the mass media, spreading the good word. Sounds very scientific and official does it not??

Let me enlighten you about "The Climate Institute".. as I, as part of my research, thought I would find out more about who and what exactly is "The Climate Institute".

The Climate Institute is funded by The Poola Fund (Tom Kantor Fund) and was started by lefty Mark Wootton and his wife Eve Kantor, who was left a fortune by her late brother (Tom). They started this "institute" with money left to them. This "Climate Institute" is heavily stacked and associated with left-wing figures pushing a purely political agenda.. Bob Carr and Clive Hamilton to name just two.

The Poola Fund also supports a whole range of other green/left political groups such as;

Australia Institute (left wing think tank, also Clive Hamiltons plaything)
Australian Conservation Foundation
Friends of the Earth (what can I say??)
Beyond Nuclear Initiative (Partnership ACF, FOE & Poola Fund)
Queensland Conservation
Medical Association for the Prevention of War (WTF??)
The list of good left social causes goes on....

"The Climate Institute" is a very official, scientific sounding title given to a group of people who are quite openly pro-left and pro-green (politically) who have a political agenda to push. And it sucks in people who don't do their homework. "Oh, The Climate Institute says it's so, with a name like that they can't be wrong".

It takes a fool to accept as gospel anything that comes from groups with a known bias. It's akin to believing studies commissioned by tobacco companies that say smoking isn't all that bad for your health. It's called vested interests....

You've been sucked in by a flash name...

 

[2020hindsight]

1. It takes a fool to accept as gospel anything that comes from groups with a known bias.

2. It's akin to believing studies commissioned by tobacco companies that say smoking isn't all that bad for your health. It's called vested interests....

ferret
I see you've been doing your own ferreting around on the internet.
I'll resort to the same EVEN IF ... THEN argument ok? ( I can see you are gonna treat any polling as suspicious that doesn't give you your preferred answer)...

1. first question then is , would you accept 17% - sheesh. and that was before Bali.

You accuse people of a bias when they have nothing personal to gain.
Compare that to Singer and Ball (who I have now had to expose twice on this thread as complete scientific who-res - I trust you are not gonna ask me to do it again ...) . Ask them to give back the money they received from the oil companies for their opinions.

2. And whilst you're at it , ask them to give back what they got from the tobacco industry. - insisting that there was no evidence that smoking and cancer were related.

- in VERY similar language to current "lock-down-denial-against-all-the-evidence"

And you have the mmm incredible logic (almost said duplicity) to pretend that it's the scientists like the IPCC etc who are at fault here. To compare then to the tobacco industry deniers.

You have no further to look than your team. - these "scientists" (Singer and Ball) were then and still are arguably "criminals" - well they would be criminals if David Suzuki had his way you'd reckon - not only them but the politicians who follow their advice.

Moving on..
3. Are you in the group that say the world is not getting hotter? - that the ice is not melting etc ? Here is what the Nobel Peace Prize winning IPCC think about the facts...

4. I assume you know what 1.65 sigma means?

5. Back to Singer and Ball - If you had a relative who died from smoking-related cancer AFTER Singer and Ball went in to bat so strongly (including financial gain) FOR the cigarette companies, would you say it's fair to call them scientific who-res? Or would you use a term like murderers?

THis is from the IPCC website ( talk by manning if you're interested). Trust you've been there in the couse of your research.

 

[2020hindsight]

Whenever I see that a small minority believe something in contrary to the masses, I want to know what they know that the masses don't.

Don't fall for the "Appeal to Widespread Belief" fallacy. Science only please.

Wayne, You say “science only” I disagree (that we should limit ourselves to chemistry etc) .
or possibly, it depends how you define "science".

We should be discussing not only the stats and the scientific explanations, but the public opinion, the politics, the need for action (individually, locally, nationally and internationally), the chance of said action, the chance of a effective result, etc.
- even the economic effects of action - or (Sterns etc) the greater economic effect of inaction.

Then of course there are the big questions like the cheap clean energies like nuclear – which we will no question one day be forced to use. But that’s tomorrows discussion – or rather one for our kids or grandkids.

Surely we need action. - ok ok - you would say against SOME forms of pollution, I say ALL forms of pollution (which would become a accepted public mindset for the future. - just as there has been an incredible acceptance with time for recycling bins).

And surely we need to get public recognition of this fact, because as you mentioned many times, we should each be driving smaller cars, and driving less etc.

And Govts have to take action, introducing and encouraging sustainable energy, PLANNING (wow there’s a new word) however belatedly for the future , even if we are in serious damage control mode.

There is a very important power source required to get this movement going – you infer so yourself when you criticise inaction and/or say “too little too late” – and that is PEOPLE POWER.

Events like Clean UP Australia Day might be a great effort, and no question have turned people’s opinion around to littering and plastic over the years, but you need more aware ness of the heat we are generating. all those Laws of Thermodynamics that are going on in the background – and using the resources in a TOTALLY unsustainable manner – there is no such thing as sustainable use of oil – unless I guess you use it at the same rate as it’s being formed ).

This is a trading chatroom right? heck we even discuss the economic opportunities:-

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/20/2194865.htm?section=justin

Emissions trading 'could produce $20b windfall
By environment reporter Sarah Clarke
Posted 14 minutes ago
A new report says the Federal Government could reap up to $20 billion in new revenue under the national emissions trading scheme. – Monash University etc

 

[2020hindsight]

Now getting back to talking more about chemistry and physics, I’m all for discussing E=mc^2 for starters

Heck, here's a bloke who (allegedly) has argued against man's contribution to global warming , and he STILL concudes we should be going nuclear ...

Incidentally, he also says "a few more hot summers and a few more years of drought and eventually people will face the inevitable" - implying he agrees that it's getting hotter.

I'm guessing he'd agree that going nuclear would cause a reduction in this last-mentioned effect. (why else would he say it )

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/17/2191969.htm

Energy 'collapse' will force nuclear use, says expert
Posted Mon Mar 17, 2008 6:20pm AEDT
Updated Mon Mar 17, 2008 6:55pm AEDT
A professor of geology has warned there will be no option other than embracing nuclear power in Australia when other energy sources collapse.
Professor Ian Plimer from Adelaide University has addressed a uranium conference in Adelaide.
He says wind and solar power will not be viable to meet energy demands when the electricity grid eventually fails under extreme pressure.
"They are straining right now and a few more years of growth, a few more hot summers and a few more years of drought and eventually people will face the inevitable; that we need electricity and that electricity needs to be reliable," he said.

"And to get base load power we do not want to have coal generation; the only sensible and sustainable base load power is uranium.

"If people start dying in hospitals because there's no electricity, if people can't get water because there's no electricity to pump water from dams, if people can't keep their food cool because there's no electricity for refrigeration, then I think there'll be a very, very, very rapid change of opinion."

Professor Plimer has also argued at the conference that humans are not contributing to global warming.

 

[explod]

Now getting back to talking more about chemistry and physics, I’m all for discussing E=mc^2 for starters

Heck, here's a bloke who (allegedly) has argued against man's contribution to global warming , and he STILL concudes we should be going nuclear ...

Incidentally, he also says "a few more hot summers and a few more years of drought and eventually people will face the inevitable" - implying he agrees that it's getting hotter.

I'm guessing he'd agree that going nuclear would cause a reduction in this last-mentioned effect. (why else would he say it )

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/17/2191969.htm

Used to be a member of the Greens some years ago and they lost me by their arguments on this issue.

Yes saw an article on the a day or so ago and agree fully. Compared to other power sources the waste and pollution from nuclear is nearly zilch. There are modern nuclear power plants in operation that are very safe and secure.

We must get our heads out of the sand and explore this option seriously. If China do not go this way, the sheer numbers of cars and coal fired generators will burn up the air supply while we blink.

There a few things not included in this article, one being the pollution content of nuclear, (near zilch)

 

[2020hindsight]

explod .. yep - I was pro nuclear in the 60's, (obviuosly as a plough share rather than a sword)
then got a bit nervous after Cherobyl, then back again ever since I heard a prof say "compared to Global Warming, Chernobyl will look like a walk in the park

 

[2020hindsight]

ferret, lemme guess, you think this is just a fluke ? - that just as we are discussing Global Warming, Adelaide gets a one in 3000 year event?

What sort of science have you studied btw?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/18/2192987.htm?section=justin

Adelaide heatwave 'one in 3,000 yrs'
Posted Tue Mar 18, 2008 3:03pm AEDT
Updated Tue Mar 18, 2008 4:40pm AEDT
A climate model indicates that a 15-day heatwave in Adelaide, like one that has just ended, is only likely to happen once in 3,000 years.

The heatwave occurrence model has been created by atmospheric scientist Dr Warwick Grace.

To check its reliability, Dr Grace matched the model's projections with Adelaide weather records.

He hopes the model will help scientists predict the likelihood and duration of extreme heat.

"We will incorporate projections that have been provided in a more general sense from the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO and so then we will be able to say 'Well the expectation of heatwaves at certain length and intensity may or may not change'," he said.

Adelaide had 15 days of temperatures above 35 degrees Celsius, including 40.5 yesterday, setting a capital city record in Australia.

Today has been more than 10 degrees cooler.


'Evidence of climate change'

The Federal Government has used Adelaide's record heatwave to attack the coalition's credentials on the issue of climate change.

Agriculture Minister Tony Burke has told Federal Parliament the 15 consecutive days above 35 degrees are evidence of the warming trend.

He has accused the coalition of being slow to acknowledge the impact of climate change.

"You talk to anyone in South Australia at the moment working the land - they are living climate change," he said.

"The heatwave that has just been endured has been described today by one scientist as a one-in-3,000-year event and the Member for Kalgoorlie [Barry Haase] says, 'Oh it's just the weather'."

 

[2020hindsight]

ferret ,
why do I think it's not particularly relevant what a sub-15% minority say on this ?
Well unless you are personally gonna sabotage energy usage,
we have three parties at least who are pro-action on global warming.

1. Labor
2. Greens
3. Coaltion.

Why not start a
4. "Ferret's Party" ?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/03/18/2192326.htm?section=justin

Nelson to focus on climate change
Posted Tue Mar 18, 2008 9:41am AEDT

Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson will outline the Opposition's climate change policy today. (AFP: Greg Wood)

Federal Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson says being part of the global solution to climate change will be a major part of the Coalition's policy platform.

 

[chops_a_must]

Used to be a member of the Greens some years ago and they lost me by their arguments on this issue.

Yes saw an article on the a day or so ago and agree fully. Compared to other power sources the waste and pollution from nuclear is nearly zilch. There are modern nuclear power plants in operation that are very safe and secure.

We must get our heads out of the sand and explore this option seriously. If China do not go this way, the sheer numbers of cars and coal fired generators will burn up the air supply while we blink.

There a few things not included in this article, one being the pollution content of nuclear, (near zilch)

It is inevitable that most of the world will go nuclear.

I do not think it is right for Australia however.

You need a lot of water, dense population (I'd argue Australians are pretty dense... but... you know what I mean), and a cool climate helps...

The only place for mine that it would be suitable would be in Tassie, and I don't think that will ever happen.

 

[The Ferret]

A few hot days in S.A is "evidence" of global warming? lol. Of course, the fact that Sydney has just had it's coolest January in 50 years means nothing... By your reasoning I could equally claim that this means the earth is cooling. Both would be a silly conclusion to draw from such limited observation.

 

[wayneL]

A few hot days in S.A is "evidence" of global warming? lol. Of course, the fact that Sydney has just had it's coolest January in 50 years means nothing... By your reasoning I could equally claim that this means the earth is cooling. Both would be a silly conclusion to draw from such limited observation.

Another logical fallacy - Argument by selective observation.