Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

[--B--]

Well, folks, enjoy your meat eating while you can. I heard a climate change enthusiast this morning advise that cows produce so much greenhouse gas that they are a decided hazard. He thought we should all become vegetarians.

We might as well just all stop breathing. That might save the planet.

the funny / scary thing is that some on the green brigade would actually advocate a return to living in straw huts and burning brush fires for warmth while eating leaves and berries.

it just goes to show how truly nutty these greenies are.

 

[Aussiejeff]

the funny / scary thing is that some on the green brigade would actually advocate a return to living in straw huts and burning brush fires for warmth while eating leaves and berries.

it just goes to show how truly nutty these greenies are.

Nuts and greens???

Mmmm-mmm!! Health food!!!

Yummmm!

 

[wayneL]

Nuts and greens???

Mmmm-mmm!! Health food!!!

Yummmm!

I reckon wombats have the idea - eats roots shoots and leaves.

(Comma placement at your discretion )

 

[Calliope]

Wayne I like the idea that ants are the problem. So does my termite eradicator. He is not only saving houses he is saving the world.

 

[2020hindsight]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/09/2359058.htm

David Karoly is a Professor of Meteorology at Melbourne University and was a lead author on the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's fourth report.

He says Professor Garnaut's proposed emissions cuts of 10 per cent by 2020 is not enough to minimise the dangerous effects of climate change on Australia and the rest of the world.

"The longer we wait to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, the more carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will be in the atmosphere, the more climate change we will experience," he told Sabra Lane on ABC Radio's AM program.

"Australia needs to have substantial cuts in greenhouse gas emissions and they need to be cut urgently if we wish to minimise dangerous climate change."

Professor Karoly says Professor Garnaut's approach to cutting Australia's emissions is too conservative and sends the wrong message to the rest of the world about Australia's intentions on climate change.

"It appears ... that he is taking an approach which is politically and economically palatable or acceptable, rather than taking the opportunity which we have perhaps once in this century to take bold action, for Australia to take a leading role in reducing its greenhouse gas emissions," he said.

Dear Prof Karoly and Prof Garnaut
When you say "taking an approach which is politically and economically palatable or acceptable" - are you taking into account those diehards amongst us who won't be happy unless and until they see us charging leming-like to the cliff edge and jumping off?

 

[--B--]

He says Professor Garnaut's proposed emissions cuts of 10 per cent by 2020 is not enough to minimise the dangerous effects of climate change on Australia and the rest of the world.

Dear Prof Karoly,

by how many degrees will Australia's ETS reduce temperatures by? (do you know 2020?? ive yet to meet anyone who can answer this)

Professor Karoly says Professor Garnaut's approach to cutting Australia's emissions is too conservative and sends the wrong message to the rest of the world about Australia's intentions on climate change.

Dear Karoly,

the rest of the world doesnt care one iota what ausrtralia does in this regard.

 

[Pat]

Dear Karoly,

the rest of the world doesnt care one iota what ausrtralia does in this regard.

You mean you don't care...




This thread reinforces the fact, most 'old' dogs can't be taught new tricks. (Not saying anyone is old) :

It is sad to see peeps are not taking advantage of this GW fact/myth. As I have posted before it is and excellent opportunity for change.

Regardless of GW, any positive change for the environment will cost everyone shyte loads of money, convenience and time.

Mocking every article and the people who want to actually see, and are prepared to sacrifice change is ridiculous.
The future population will one day them for there concern... and action.

 

[--B--]

You mean you don't care.

no pat. i mean the US, China and India dont give a damn. To think our decision to screw our economy in the name of unproven science will entice those countries to follow is absolutely ridiculous.

It is sad to see peeps are not taking advantage of this GW fact/myth. As I have posted before it is and excellent opportunity for change.

Regardless of GW, any positive change for the environment will cost everyone shyte loads of money, convenience and time.

regardless of it being a myth??

excuse me for being concerned about inflicting an ETS on our economy for absolutely no purpose. im quite concerned that this is indeed the thinking behind many of the "well it cant be a bad thing" arguments,, - when actually it can be quite a bad thing.

i dont think many will argue against any 'positive' for the environment Pat. just not on the basis of greeny lies nad just not at the expense of our economy.

Mocking every article and the people who want to actually see, and are prepared to sacrifice change is ridiculous.
The future population will one day them for there concern... and action.

so by how much is our ETS is supposed to reduce temperatures by Pat?

 

[Pat]

no pat. i mean the US, China and India dont give a damn. To think our decision to screw our economy in the name of unproven science will entice those countries to follow is absolutely ridiculous.

We lead by example. Is this an excuse not to change to greener ways?... because others don't give damn? Maybe they do --B--, Perhaps it will work, then we (Australia) will be the example to follow.

regardless of it being a myth??

excuse me for being concerned about inflicting an ETS on our economy for absolutely no purpose. im quite concerned that this is indeed the thinking behind many of the "well it cant be a bad thing" arguments,, - when actually it can be quite a bad thing.

Thats more than fair enough, change must be done in a sustainable way... The key here is change, not much going by the way of change eh? All because of money... Thats why we don't have electric cars.

just not on the basis of greeny lies nad just not at the expense of our economy.

EXACTLY!!! I don't think we'll ruin too much, but then again, there's that sacrifice we all must make. Greenie lies is the excuse, what ever the reason... there will be an excuse.

so by how much is our ETS is supposed to reduce temperatures by Pat?

Not sure, I'm not a scientist.... yet. With 6 yrs and some hard study while working I will be
However I'm of the thinking we can't stop/reverse CC. Perhaps slow the change down.
Either way, thats not my point.
How are we going to make this a better, cleaner, more efficient society if we keep saying we can't afford to?

 

[--B--]

We lead by example. Is this an excuse not to change to greener ways?... because others don't give damn?

if its a valid reason then of course not. my point was in response to the comments made in the article above regarding Australia sending a message to the rest of the world. its absolutely preposterous.

EXACTLY!!! I don't think we'll ruin too much, but then again, there's that sacrifice we all must make.

"must" is the key word there Pat. thats why this debate is so interesting and is still raging on.

Not sure, I'm not a scientist....

because the answer, as any scientist will tell you, is ZERO.

the fact that Rudd and co continue to comment on hos 'we must do this to save the reef' etc is simply misleading and is what gets the average punter full of fear and preparedness to put their financial well being on the line.

i quote Rudd himself:

"and kakadu... no more kakadu..."

this comment is simply astounding, it is simply untrue, and yet im sure many were shaking in their boots when they heard their PM mutter the words.

How are we going to make this a better, cleaner, more efficient society if we keep saying we can't afford to?

this can all be done without the "we must act now or perish" lies being perpetrated by the misleading green agenda.

 

[2020hindsight]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/09/2359058.htm
Dear Prof Karoly and Prof Garnaut
When you say "taking an approach which is politically and economically palatable or acceptable" - are you taking into account those diehards amongst us ....

ok -B- you're proving the point though.

No matter how much they water it down, to the point where there is no pain, and likewise no gain, ;

to the point where we miss the millions of opportunities out there to innovate and sell renewable energy techniques to the world, and / or clean up existing energy (where Arnie Schwarz is miles ahead of us) ...

no matter how much they do so ... some will still complain.

 

[wayneL]

The only thing that will reduce emissions is a depression... and we gotta knock off those ants!</irony>

Anyway, when Yellowstone blows, we go into a mini ice age.

 

[Julia]

This thread is similar to the one on Religion. Either you believe or you don't.
However, with the religion thing, the beliefs make no ultimate difference to the economy. But with the religion of climate change fanatics, nothing will make them happy until an ETS is at the level where it completely wrecks the economy.

 

[2020hindsight]

Julia
even wayne believes we should act

 

[wayneL]

This thread is similar to the one on Religion. Either you believe or you don't.
However, with the religion thing, the beliefs make no ultimate difference to the economy. But with the religion of climate change fanatics, nothing will make them happy until an ETS is at the level where it completely wrecks the economy.

And China takes over the world

 

[wayneL]

Julia
even wayne believes we should act

On pollution, not particularly carbon.

 

[2020hindsight]

post #22 wayne - you wonder why I'm confused with your position on all this ...

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.

 

[Julia]

post #22 wayne - you wonder why I'm confused with your position on all this ...

What is the source of your confusion here, 2020? The quote you have just posted from Wayne echoes his earlier comment where he points out his concern is more with pollution than Co2.

 

[wayneL]

post #22 wayne - you wonder why I'm confused with your position on all this ...

You will find heaps of my views have changed over time. I don't stubbornly hold to any position.

I admit to have slightly succumbed to the fear tactics of the AGW gravy train. Now I know more and am no longer concerned about co2.

 

[Smurf1976]

I'd have a lot more confidence in the whole thing if natural gas was specifically excluded as a means of reducing emissions. With the peak oil situation, we'll need all the gas we can get for transport. Phase out gas-fired power, don't increase it.

If we go down the gas track then what happens in 20 years when we're stuck with predominantly gas-fired power, peak gas and haven't developed a large renewables industry because gas was easier? Answer - we do just what every other country facing declining gas production has done, go straight back to coal.

And what the hell do we do for transport once we've got rid of all the gas? Electric heavy trucks won't be here anytime soon.

The other great danger is geopolitical. Russian and Middle East dominance of gas reserves makes Iraq's oil seem trivial. Now think about that for a moment. A developed world dependent not only on Middle East oil for transport, but on declining supplies of oil & gas for electric power and industry as well.

It's a frightening scenario when you think about it. Energy has long lead to conflict of various sorts and with so few holding ALL the cards it just doesn't bear thinking about. They're already signalling their intentions pretty loudly in my view and we'd be outright fools to take the bait.