Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

wayneL said:

Oh Al can stand up to it with Nobel Peace prize and Oscar in hand... not to mention millions of dollars and an energy hungry mansion and lifestyle.

As for sensitivities to generalities, reactions to having accidentally touched a hypocrite nerve, I can do nothing about.

Click to expand...

2020hindsight said:

wayne look over your posts , your principal (unprincipled imo) reason for puring water on the GW debate is that Al Gore lives in a big house.

Click to expand...

2020hindsight said:

accidentally touched a hypocrite nerve, what the ?? lol

Click to expand...

2020hindsight said:

Wayne , what you may or may not have preceived during private discussions on PM is your business. It happens to be wrong, but no matter.

And fial point, I would have thought that PM's are just that – personal, not for general distribution – that would go double for those sent to both Joe and yourself – which were indeed in the form of a complaint , yes? you agree?

hey, your ethics are yours and for you to live with.

Click to expand...

2020hindsight said:

me too
and the bs they can pedal

Like that site of yours lol. "Greenies hate people" ??
(only selfish ones m8, only selfish ones)

Click to expand...

Fishbulb said:

a; it isn't my site

b; you clearly didn't read any of it

c; but that's okay

Click to expand...

Emission reduction scheme should be seen as 'insurance'
Posted 7 hours 51 minutes ago

The federal bureaucrat who will implement Australia's carbon trading scheme has attacked climate change sceptics.

The secretary of the Department of Climate Change, Doctor Martin Parkinson, says climate change deniers have misappropriated the term "sceptic".

He has told a forum that the weight of scientific evidence is real and Australia is likely to be hardest hit.

Dr Parkinson says even an agnostic should accept the precautionary principle and see emission reduction schemes as taking out insurance.

He says it makes sense for Australia to demonstrate an emissions reduction scheme which enhances Australia's economic welfare if adopted in other countries

Click to expand...

Even the most severe of the proposals to deal with CO2 emissions are rendered completely useless when you do a quick calculation.....

Exponential population growth ....... it does not matter what measures you put in place when we the
Earth's population continues to explode.

Any measures simply be overwhelmed by the need to feed, house and sustain an exponentially growing population.


Whether you believe in human-induced climate change or not, this issue has to be dealt with first ....... and urgently.

Click to expand...

The science of climate change is now understood to an extent the basic trends are clear - consistent with what we see in the poles and mid-latitudes. What's needed is action by governments, corporations and the public. In so far as you may wish to look at some of the most up-to-date scientific literature in this regard, I recommend the CSIRO, BOM, NASA, Hadley Met, Potsdam Oceanographic Institute and the IPCC reports.

Click to expand...

Consider this. Australia, with just 20 million people, is sending the fifth biggest team to the Beijing Games, behind only China, the United States, Russia and Germany.

We're sending 434 athletes, when countries as populous as Britain, France, Italy, Japan, Brazil and Indonesia have happily made do with far fewer.

India - with more than a billion people - thinks even 57 athletes is plenty. If it sent athletes at our manic rate instead it would have had to name a team of 25,000.

In fact, if the world sent athletes at the rate we do, the Beijing Olympics would have not 10,500 competitors but 145,500. It would need a city almost the size of Geelong to house them all.

Or put it this way: if Australia's team was, pro rata, the size of everyone else's, we'd have not 434 athletes at Beijing, but just 31.

So instead of having too few athletes, Mr Coates, I'd say we have about 400 too many. So why on earth do we need to pay you and yours for even more?

Click to expand...

In fact, if the world sent athletes at the rate we do, the Beijing Olympics would have not 10,500 competitors but 145,500. It would need a city almost the size of Geelong to house them all.

Click to expand...

2020hindsight said:

I did actually, but not all,
the bit I thought was blatantly tainted was the sentence I quoted, that "greenies hate people" - lol. I would have thought that card carrying greenies (which I am not, buy Wayne is) would take offence

Click to expand...

2020hindsight said:

If you said " I am against action despite the fact that I can't prove it isn't happening", then I would consder that Denialist. (ditto)

Click to expand...

Pat said:

2020 I'd say this is the crux of the whole debate. You simply cannot deny the possibility humanity may be taking part in climate change.

Click to expand...

Kurt Vonnegut said:

- his last book ended in a poem .......
"When the last living thing has died on account of us, how poetical it would be if earth could say in a voice floating up, perhaps from the floor of the Grand Canyon, it is done, people did not like it here. "

Click to expand...

Big Phil said:

In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation.

Click to expand...

To a British student in Papua New Guinea: "You managed not to get eaten then?"

When visiting China in 1986, he told a group of British students, "If you stay here much longer, you'll all be slitty-eyed";

Angering local residents in Lockerbie when on a visit to the town in 1993, the Prince said to a man who lived in a road where eleven people had been killed by wreckage from the Pan Am jumbo jet: "People usually say that after a fire it is water damage that is the worst. We are still trying to dry out Windsor Castle."

Click to expand...

For conservation to be successful it is necessary to take into consideration that it is a characteristic of man that he can only be relied upon to do anything consistently which is in his own interest. He may have occasional fits of conscience and moral rectitude but otherwise his actions are governed by self-interest. It follows then that whatever the moral reasons for conservation it will only be achieved by the inducement of profit or pleasure.
World Wildlife Fund: British National Appeal Banquet, London, (1962)

Click to expand...

...man must accept responsibilities in proportion to his power and, if we are to exercise these responsibilities so that all life can continue on earth, they must have a moral and philosophical basis. Simple self-interest, economic profit and absolute materialism are no longer enough... It has been made perfectly clear that a concern for any part of life on this planet - human, plant or animal, wild or tame - is a concern for all life. A threat to any part of the environment is a threat to the whole environment, but we must have a basis of assessment of these threats, not so that we can establish a priority of fears, but so that we can make a positive contribution to improvement and ultimate survival.

It is frequently more rewarding merely to ask pertinent questions. It may get someone to go and look for an answer. If you get a silly answer, which can easily happen, you can return to the charge with even more telling effect. Whatever happens, don't give up and don't despair. Results may not be immediately apparent, but you may have touched a receptive chord without knowing it. Even the most unsympathetic and unenlightened politician, industrialist or bureaucrat begins to take notice when a lot of people write about the same subject.

It is an old cliche to say that the future is in the hands of the young. This is no longer true. The quality of life to be enjoyed or the existence to be survived by our children and future generations is in our hands now.
The World Wildlife Fund Congress, London, (1970)

Click to expand...

A new criterion has been added, the conservation of the environment so that in the long run life, including human life, can continue. This new consideration must be taken into account at all levels and in all departments of government and in the boardrooms of every industrial enterprise. It is no longer sufficient simply to quantify the elements of existence as in old-fashioned material economics; conservation means taking notice of the quality of existence as well...The problem is of course to give some value to that quality and perhaps the only way to do this is to try and work out the cost in terms of loss of amenities, loss of holiday and recreation facilities, loss of property values, loss of contact with nature, loss of health standards and loss of food resources, if proper conservation methods are not used. Looked at in that light it may well turn out that money spent on proper pollution control, urban and rural planning and the control of exploitation of wild stocks of plants or animals on land and in the sea, is the less expensive alternative in the long run...The conservation of nature, the proper care for the human environment and a general concern for the long-term future of the whole of our planet are absolutely vital if future generations are to have a chance to enjoy their existence on this earth.
The Australian Conservation Foundation April Canberra (1970)

Click to expand...

wayneL said:

The denialist (as well as hypocrite) is the person who does nothing about it. i.e. shoves it down everbody's throat yet continues with a consumerist energy hungry lifestyle.

4WDing would be a good example.

Al Bore is the prime example.

It's not what you say or don't say that matters, it's what you do and/or don't do.

So I ask the question yet again: What are AGW klaxons doing?

Click to expand...

Pat said:

It's not really our life style Wayne. We can have our cake and eat it too.
Granted we must stop the excess consumption. But you can have your X5 (Don't know why you'd want one) if your using electricity to power your car, and so on. We can do it, but why aren't we?

Is it the consumer who ultimately decides?

I asked you before, "What do you want the peeps to do?" Apart form the usual, save water, walk to the shop, wear a jumper, blah blah blah.
Our hands are tied (mainly by money) and worse still we are constantly fed crapola from the media about what we should and shouldn't have.
Should the process not start from here? Why won't world govt's push a little harder for greener technology? Why is it only Toyota and Honda that make Hybrid production cars?
You put the onus on the individual, but any significant change needs to come from elsewhere, does it not?

We live in a consumerist energy hungry world, lead by consumerist energy hungry leaders. Are you surprised the people are the same way?

Click to expand...

P.S. How much do you know about 4WD's and 4WDing? Greenie!

Click to expand...

wayneL said:

Well I really need not say a thing.

Click to expand...

wayneL said:

Without being an outright enthusiast, I know lots. Always had them on the horse farm.

Click to expand...

Pat said:

Then why have an issue with anyone who "preaches" AGW? Because they own a V8 to tow their boat they don't have any right to voice an opinion?

Click to expand...

Smurf1976 said:

Anyone even remotely concerned about the issue wouldn't want a boat or 4WD in the first place unless it's needed for income generation.

You can't expect me to take anyone too seriously if on one hand they run around shouting about AGW whilst on the other hand burning thousands of litres of petrol / diesel just for the fun of it.

It would be like complaining about smog whilst shovelling leaves onto a bonfire in the backyard. Or protesting about dams then going home to hose the driveway. You can't expect anyone doing such things to be taken as anything other than a comedian.

As I've often said, if you want to stop AGW then all you need to do is stop polluting. If enough people agree then that fixes the problem. Thing is, there aren't too many people willing to stop polluting unless given no choice - that strongly suggests they're not losing too much sleep over the issue.

Click to expand...

wayneL said:

Why would ***greenies(see below) take offence? In the context mentioned, it's probably true.

The word "greenie" has a shifting meaning according to context and there are various "levels" of "greeniness".

Some are anti any sort of development, as such, they probably to harbour a sort of hatred for humankind. Some are more pragmatic; some greenies might be OK with nuclear in favour of old coal technology. There is a spectrum of people in the green movement.

Click to expand...

Smurf1976 said:

The world's first green political party was formed on an anti-hydro, pro-coal / oil platform and was not opposed to increased logging of forests or nuclear power. That's a fact and was well documented at the time.

The successor of that very same party now opposes nuclear, coal, oil and logging whilst having coined the term "clean, green hydro-electricity". They aren't keen on gas either.

Another fact is that one of the first energy-related environmental arguments on mainland Australia centred around oppositon to gas and arguing for brown coal as a better alternative.

Now the general view is the exact opposite with the very same power station once championed as an example of what was good with calls to increase output now being subject to constant calls for closure whilst the one that was once so strongly opposed goes unnoticed.

Overall, the green view has pretty much changed 180 degrees on energy over the last 35 years.

Click to expand...