- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,309
- Reactions
- 17,555
The service industry model is what's brought so much undone recently with the financial crisis. You don't create real wealth shuffling money - witness the transfer of global wealth to those carrying out actual physical production (eg China) away from the service economies.Energy intensive industries like mining and agriculture make up alot of our EXPORTS but still consist of less than 11% of our economy. First world countries like Australia are built on the services sector (~70% of our GDP). You'll struggle to offshore that sector and at any rate, not due to climate change.
Furthermore, using Tasmania as a microcosm, energy-intensity doesn't necessarily equate to better economic outcomes. Job and economic growth in Tasmania is being driven by an increasingly educated workforce with more uni grads. Not through the five big refineries.
according to scientists the earth started out as a flaming ball of gas and molten lava, since that time it has gone from ice age to a tropical climate countless times... a recent geological report estimated that at the time of the dinosaurs the earths temp was somehwere between 50 & 60 degrees C, traces of tomatoes growing were found in the artic circle by archeologists recently, greenland was named that as it was covered in lush grass at the time of the vikings... TO THINK THAT THE CLIMATE WILL REMAIN STAGNANT AT A TEMPERATURE THAT SUITS HUMANS IS BLOODY REDICULOUS! the climate constantly changes, the different gas concentrations in the atmosphere are determined to a large part by the oceans (the real 'lungs of the earth') the amount of temperate variation caused by AGW is miniscule (estimated at 0.07 of a degree by richard lidzen if i recall correctly) ...its easy to stump the AGW zealots, just ask them "well what is the average temp for the earth supposed to be?" ... i havnt been able to get a response yet!!!! we need to focus on sustainability & pollution control rather than be sidetracked by the money-machine that makes up the AGW religion... and if anyone tells me i cant eat meat they'll be measuring their height on the bl**dy ground!!!
The science of CFC's is fully understood. There is no doubt that they cause damage to the ozone layer by mixing with Polar Stratospheric Clouds at high altitude.cfc,s are clever really,they can find there way down to new zealand where the largest hole in the ozone layer is..just happens to be over a volcano spewing out sulpher.
just to add a little more,cfc,s are heavier than air so the clever little mites have built there own rocket to get up(25 miles) and attack the ozone layer some more.
...much of the output of the IPCC's models bears little relationship to the real world. With so much at stake, the least we can expect is for scientists and policymakers to make sure that they are using the right data. Garbage in, garbage out.
Not enough fuel is precisely the real issue.Here's another interesting article:
http://www.gaia-technology.com/sa/newsletters/newsletters.cfm
Basically, there are not enough fossil fuel reserves to fulfil the IPCC's modelling assumptions.
President of ACF, chair of the first Australian State of the Environment Report in 1996 and referee for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Prof Ian Lowe AO will be at the Climate Summit in Copenhagen.
He wants to see you at Walk against Warming on December 12th.
Follow the links below for more about Brisbane's Walk against Warming and how to send the Prime Minister a letter telling him that we want leadership for a safe climate.
Here is great initiative by global warming enthusiasts. Not this Saturday but the following Saturday 12th, a walk against global warming takes place.
Here's why.
You should know man's way. Cure is better than prevention.Am I missing something? Choice b looks obviously silly.
"If" there is a problem that will impact us severely, we'd better try to correct it, regardless of cause.
IF you are reading this on a train or a bus, I want you to lean across and shake the hand of the man or woman sitting next to you. Folks, we did it. We beat global warming.
Last year, at this time, I wrote of how global warming was already on the retreat in Australia because of the way humanity, for once, put aside its differences and acted in unison.
Last year, other parts of the globe followed suit. According to the World Meteorological Organisation: "The most significant area of below-normal temperatures in 2011 was in northern and central Australia, where temperatures were up to 1C below average in places . . . Other regions to experience below-normal temperatures in 2011 included the western United States and southwestern Canada, and parts of east Asia."
Last year was the sixth coldest since 1997, which shows the catastrophic scenarios of recent times are no longer looming over us.
So how did we manage to beat global warming?
Well, in the first place - and this almost goes without saying - we thought global, but acted local.
Second, we listened. We listened to people like Bob Brown and Tim Flannery, even though they have no meteorological training and have voiced many silly opinions on other subjects.
Third, enormous credit belongs to the Australian government. A nation that generates less than 2 per cent of the world's carbon emissions made its taxation system more complicated: this was clearly decisive.
But here's the most important thing we did: we suspended the role of education institutions as centres of learning and made them centres of browbeating.
The Greens are in shock. Their usual tactics didn't work, despite the 'Love Media' SMH and the ABC working overtime. Something of a first.Global Warming Officially is OVER.
Read Imre Salusinszky in the Australian.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...g-global-warming/story-e6frg71o-1226241105031
gg
The Greens are in shock. Their usual tactics didn't work, despite the 'Love Media' SMH and the ABC working overtime. Something of a first.
In central NSW, in mid-Jan, here are the forecast maxima tempC for the next 4 days: 22, 25, 23, 23.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?