Global Warming - How Valid and Serious?

[Pat]

Global warming is a fraud....

And the logic used to come up with that one Mr Vulcan avatar?

 

[Calliope]

One option not in the poll is;

We take corrective action even though the costs of mitigation clearly exceed the benefits of reducing global emissions.

That is now Prof. Ross Garnaut's conclusion

www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/opinion

 

[Pat]

www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/opinion

That's a little pessimistic IMO..

The simple answer is of course that we should reduce only if the world -- in practice, that means the US, China, India and Europe -- agrees. What on earth is the point of reducing unilaterally?

Who dares go first?

You might say-
"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
Edmund Burke.

I would hope, in 50yrs time, we have reduced emissions significantly. Technology will make it cost effective... I hope.

 

[2020hindsight]

I've copied these posts from the WA election thread. Probably the only thing where I agreed with Johnny Howard - although he was vascillating bigtime at the end.

I post this to show that China will / could reduce their carbon emissions per head with this trend. (while we are left behind). PS if it happens of course.

Hi 2020, Glad to see you're for nuclear powerstations in Australia. I prefer them in China with the waste sent to Europe. Still, I respect your view on this and maybe you're right "more nuclear powerstations in Australia - noi

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/01/2351819.htm

Australian uranium could fuel 70pc of China: BHP
Posted Mon Sep 1, 2008 12:47pm AEST

BHP Billiton chairman Don Argus says Australia could be supplying 70 per cent of China's power needs from uranium in the future. Mr Argus told a business conference in Canberra that China is Australia's most important trading partner.

Australia and China signed a uranium supply agreement in 2006, but the Rudd Government has ruled out the sale of nuclear material to India. Mr Argus says there is no reason BHP Billiton can not supply uranium to China from its Olympic Dam mine in South Australia.

But he says Australia needs to have a debate about supplying uranium to Asia, including China.

"In fact 70 per cent of this uranium could come out of Olympic Dam, there's other uranium miners here in Australia to take advantage of this opportunity if we are brave enough to go down the path of the alternate route," he said.

 

[spooly74]

Cleared: Jury decides that threat of global warming justifies breaking the law

The threat of global warming is so great that campaigners were justified in causing more than £35,000 worth of damage to a coal-fired power station, a jury decided yesterday. In a verdict that will have shocked ministers and energy companies the jury at Maidstone Crown Court cleared six Greenpeace activists of criminal damage.

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...arming-justifies-breaking-the-law-925561.html

Mind you, it did seem like some pretty expensive paint

 

[Pat]

An oxygen crisis, not sure what to make of this...

The oxygen crisis- Could the decline of oxygen in the atmosphere undermine our health and threaten human survival?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/aug/13/carbonemissions.climatechange

I think the oxygen breathing animals (like us) will adapt as if we are living at higher altitude...

Some food for thought anyway.

Why I doubt-

I am not a scientist, but this seems a reasonable concern. It is a possibility that we should examine and assess. So, what's the evidence?

and

Surprisingly, no significant research has been done, perhaps on the following presumption: the decline in oxygen levels has taken place over millions of years of our planet's existence.

 

[Smurf1976]

http://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...arming-justifies-breaking-the-law-925561.html

Mind you, it did seem like some pretty expensive paint

Thing is, building a new coal-fired plant has absolutely NO impact on a country's CO2 emissions whatsoever unless either (1) they are not part of the Kyoto Protocol or (2) have no intention of meeting their Kyoto targets.

The whole point of an agreement like that, or a system like emissions trading, is that you then don't have to worry about individual power stations, how many cars are on the road etc since total emissions have already been set by law.

I thus conclude that the protest constitutes official admission from Greenpeace that the Kyoto Protocol does NOT do anything meaningful to reduce CO2 emissions and is a complete waste of time. On that point I'd agree with them.

In more practical terms, the UK situation is precisely why I'm so opposed to reliance on natural gas as a "solution" to the energy situation. This is what happens when it runs out - straight back to coal as the only quick fix that can be built fast enough.

 

[Calliope]

You can forget about global warming. Only the very rich, or rich organisations like Greenpeace can afford to be environmentalists. The global warming scare will be subsumed by the struggle for economic survival. It is all to do with the Heirarchy of Needs.

 

[Smurf1976]

You can forget about global warming. Only the very rich, or rich organisations like Greenpeace can afford to be environmentalists. The global warming scare will be subsumed by the struggle for economic survival. It is all to do with the Heirarchy of Needs.

Strongly agreed there.

Recent events in the financial markets marked the effective end of any serious move to cut emissions IMO. It will still be in the news for a while, but if you can't finance proven industry like a pulp mill or keep a bank afloat then forget investment in hugely capital intensive renewable energy schemes which depend on the whim of politicians to be even remotely profitable.

The capital to make a transition just isn't there now IMO and won't be for a very long time. It's going to be hard enough keeping $2 billion conventional power plants financed without trying to build $15 billion replacements.

 

[Pat]

You can forget about global warming. Only the very rich, or rich organisations like Greenpeace can afford to be environmentalists. The global warming scare will be subsumed by the struggle for economic survival. It is all to do with the Heirarchy of Needs.

Agree with your post and It's . I don't think we can forget about GW. The world is warming and we will need to adapt, emission reduction or not. No mor building on the beach etc...

The capital to make a transition just isn't there now IMO

I don't think the money has ever been there, there will never be enough money, this seems to be only 'real' hurdle.

 

[2020hindsight]

Tim Flannery on "Enough Rope"

"The earth's predicament is like being told you have cancer "

"you can't pick up a fossil without seeing the environment that co-existed with it"

 

[mit]

I'm surprised that there are still doubters. It goes to show how much people listen to those that validate their positions even if it denies reality.

The reality is that the data supporting man made global warming is like a mountain. This data is supported by thousands of scientists in many different fields showing a great consilience of data. (Any idea that these scientists have a vested interest in keeping the status quo is crazy as they would get a nobel prize).

On the other side we have a handful of hacks, if they have credentials they are usually in unrelated fields.

It is the same for Evolution Denial, AIDS Denial and Holocaust Denial. They all sound the same.

 

[Pat]

I'm surprised that there are still doubters. It goes to show how much people listen to those that validate their positions even if it denies reality.

The reality is that the data supporting man made global warming is like a mountain. This data is supported by thousands of scientists in many different fields showing a great consilience of data. (Any idea that these scientists have a vested interest in keeping the status quo is crazy as they would get a nobel prize).

On the other side we have a handful of hacks, if they have credentials they are usually in unrelated fields.

It is the same for Evolution Denial, AIDS Denial and Holocaust Denial. They all sound the same.

Any theory that cannot, at least possibly, be disproved, is not scientific.

Any simpleton can see that there may possibly be a link between us, and the forever changing environment.
I dare say, if the environmental change was for the better, we humans would be claiming it was us who did the 'good' deed.

 

[moXJO]

It will all balance out once the oil runs dry.

 

[nioka]

Early this week i was listening to reports of dust storms and gale force winds in southern NSW. This was followed up later in the day with reports of mud falling onto cars causing them to pull off the road as the mud obscured the windscreen. Now I notice on the weather site something a lot of people have waited a long time for. "Flood warnings for the Murray River upstream from the Hume weir"

Will it reach the SA border. Water from heaven as it were. Will the state and federal governments fight over who to sell it to and for how much. Maybe they will just keep it in the Hume dam as "Enviromental" water for the endangered Murray cod.

Do we put it down to a freakish event caused by global warming.

 

[Smurf1976]

(Any idea that these scientists have a vested interest in keeping the status quo is crazy as they would get a nobel prize).

Agreed that they don't generally have a vested interest in keeping the status quo.

They do, however, have a strongly vested interest in any outcome which leads to the conclusion that more research into climate change is needed. That is, after all, the basis of their employment and in some cases the sole reason for the existence of their employers.

We won't see governments pouring money into climate change research if the scientists start saying it's anything other than a near term, serious problem. That's how government funding works for anything - if it's not serious and not now then it's not funded.

Most climate change deniers are associated with those who stand to benefit from the status quo. Most on the other side (at the scientific level) are directly benefiting from public concern about the issue. Just about everyone involved is biased.

 

[noco]

Noted a documentary on Sky News recently where China are serious about reducing Greenhouse gas emmissions by steering away from coal fired power stations and converting their infrastructure to nuclear power and will shortly be requiring heaps of uranium.

As at 2005 there was some 439 Nuclear Power Stations in the northern hemisphere.

I hope Penny Wong reads this. Perhaps we should be thinking Nuclear as John Howard suggested. No doubt the critics will come back with "not in my back yard" and where are we going to store the waste?

 

[Buddy]

Read the article.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24399166-11949,00.html

Like i've said previously, apparently in this debate on everything, it seems that only "the poor" "pollute". Equally, "rich people" apparently do not "pollute".

 

[lusk]

I'm surprised that there are still doubters. It goes to show how much people listen to those that validate their positions even if it denies reality.

The reality is that the data supporting man made global warming is like a mountain. This data is supported by thousands of scientists in many different fields showing a great consilience of data. (Any idea that these scientists have a vested interest in keeping the status quo is crazy as they would get a nobel prize).

The "data" is a joke, anyone with an idea in testing and measurement knows it. Anyone that seems to speak out against global warming gets shut down no different to what seems to occur in this thread.

Most people wouldn't even be able to explain why carbon dioxide is surposed to cause global warming, they just believe what the media tells them because thousand's of scientist's said so.


http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

 

[Pat]

The "data" is a joke, anyone with an idea in testing and measurement knows it. Anyone that seems to speak out against global warming gets shut down no different to what seems to occur in this thread.

Most people wouldn't even be able to explain why carbon dioxide is surposed to cause global warming, they just believe what the media tells them because thousand's of scientist's said so.


http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html

I don't see you "shutting down" mit there lusk.