Is it OK to jest about global warming?

[Smurf1976]

Sometime you got to spend something to save something. How many people went out and bought energy saving light bulbs after watching "Al bores" movie?

I had energy efficient lights before most had even heard of Al.

 

[Smurf1976]

I'm very confused by the debate, no, argument here.
Are there people on the forum who are not convinced by climate change?

For me it's really a question of politics. Some say climate change is a massive, urgent threat. Those same people tend to be the ones who most strongly oppose the actions needed to reduce emissions.

Make your mind up. Either it's critically urgent and we have to do whatever is possible to address it (in which case it's nuclear, wind and more dams) or it's not so urgent and requires action in a few decades time or not at all (in which case we likely won't need nuclear).

As it stands today, most who are making a big fuss about the issue are, in practice, members of the anti-everything brigade. I'll change that opinion when I hear environmentalists start talking about building actual solutions rather than calling for trivial projects that do nothing beyond the feel good factor.

 

[wayneL]

not to mention that idiot David Suzuki

but Wayne - you aren't a hypocrite, because you do your best to reduce your carbon footprint yes?

Then , the question becomes ...

Why do you bother?

Further evidence that you don't actually listen.

The reason is that my overriding concern is pollution. I've said this at least a hundred times already. Humans are are having a far greater impact on the planet than by squirting a bit of CO2 in the air.

With the harmless CO2 comes a number of noxious substances, but also my focus is on non-co2 related pollutants.

The reason I agin the AGW nonsense is because everyone focuses strictly on CO2 emissions, and merrily pollutes the world with all manner of other crap.

Missus and I work a bit with wildlife and we see the result.

That my narrow-minded friend, once again, is why.

An that is why I still have respect for that idiot David Suzuki. He's wrong on anthropogenic CC, absolutely dead wrong on the politics of CC, but right on a so many other things. And at least he somewhat walks the talk, unlike the IPCC gravy train-ers.

I prefer to think of my total footprint.

 

[Julia]

:headshake:headshake

F
As it stands today, most who are making a big fuss about the issue are, in practice, members of the anti-everything brigade. I'll change that opinion when I hear environmentalists start talking about building actual solutions rather than calling for trivial projects that do nothing beyond the feel good factor.

Now, ain't that the truth!. I have long maintained that there's a section of our population which is simply basically angry. They find it pretty hard to legitimately disperse this anger. And then along comes A CAUSE!!!
Well, whoop de do! Just what we need, brothers! Let's get in there and whip this one up. Eventually some sort of compromise will be reached with carbon trading, and the issue (a bit like GST to really oversimplify it) will ease its way into our acceptance.

So then the anti-everything brigade will be on the loose again, desperately seeking something to rage about.

 

[Family_Guy]

:headshake:headshake

Now, ain't that the truth!. I have long maintained that there's a section of our population which is simply basically angry. They find it pretty hard to legitimately disperse this anger. And then along comes A CAUSE!!!
Well, whoop de do! Just what we need, brothers! Let's get in there and whip this one up. Eventually some sort of compromise will be reached with carbon trading, and the issue (a bit like GST to really oversimplify it) will ease its way into our acceptance.

So then the anti-everything brigade will be on the loose again, desperately seeking something to rage about.

Which is basically what i said earlier in the thread. Only course of action against the anti's is to double the arts degrees fees.

 

[Pat]

Make your mind up. Either it's critically urgent and we have to do whatever is possible to address it (in which case it's nuclear, wind and more dams) or it's not so urgent and requires action in a few decades time or not at all (in which case we likely won't need nuclear)..

Urgent?
I never thought of it like that. Nothing is urgent, unless we make more money from the change it'll take a war or something.
IMO GW its something we can't stop, climate change is natural, we just might be enhancing its speed, but so what? It's still coming.
What I do see is an opportunity for education. It's facinating to see our world change before our eyes, and sad at the same time.

I'm sure theres worse out there then pesky fanatical scientist enviro nerds trying to "save the world".

 

[Pat]

Urgent?

After thinking about it for a little longer... It's not urgent. But we need to change sooner or later. I would say its "cheaper" to make more of a change now than in the future.

Is there a poll yet about its urgency?

 

[2020hindsight]

After thinking about it for a little longer... It's not urgent. But we need to change sooner or later. I would say its "cheaper" to make more of a change now than in the future.

Is there a poll yet about its urgency?

there are two m8 - well aproximating to your topic of "urgency" -
Heck one is closed - feel free to open another.
Whether or not a few here are bored by the topic -
it is still the hottest of topics - a sam said. (no smiley) - and the mst important.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9468&highlight=IPCC

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9058

PS Those universities teaching that GW /CC is real - what would they know ?

Personally I'm confident there will be a lot of red faces amongst the deniers here in the short term future, let alone the medium term (let's start with the easy ones - polar melting as you say) etc

 

[Pat]

PS Those universities teaching that GW /CC is real - what would they know ?

Personally I'm confident there will be a lot of red faces amongst the deniers here in the short term future, let alone the medium term (let's start with the easy ones - polar melting as you say) etc

LOL! They know the oceans are rising and the ice is melting, the melting ice aint sea ice, so if the melting continues, and feedback mechanisms take hold. We may see another few feet added to the sea level in decade or so.
It will become urgent when the rich who live on the beach start losing there houses to the sea. Already happening on the NSW Central Coast.

 

[BillyIdol]

Yes, like Jeremy Clarkson did on his recent tour.

On freezing British weather: "There are too many green people in the world and they're not buying enough Range Rovers to warm it up.''

On Top Gear's climate concerns: "We don't have a carbon footprint. That's because we drive everywhere.''

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25010789-5012980,00.html

When (if) a carbon trading scheme hits, I can imagine the various financial groups greedily eyeing off the rights to trading conduits produced therefrom. Ticket clipping, if you will.

 

[GumbyLearner]

Yes, like Jeremy Clarkson did on his recent tour.

On freezing British weather: "There are too many green people in the world and they're not buying enough Range Rovers to warm it up.''

On Top Gear's climate concerns: "We don't have a carbon footprint. That's because we drive everywhere.''

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25010789-5012980,00.html

When (if) a carbon trading scheme hits, I can imagine the various financial groups greedily eyeing off the rights to trading conduits produced therefrom. Ticket clipping, if you will.

I think the average aussie punter could'nt give a flying about trading credits?
The question is and will be for all of your days

Do you want to eat?

 

[2020hindsight]

I heard the PM of Tuvalu on the radio today ...
To be honest he'd gone beyond the recent hype about going 100% renewable ... and was warning that we (Aus and NZ) could expect to see them knocking on the door soon as "environmental refugees"

(Can't find the link to the ABC interview however.)

I can tell you, he's not joking about global warming

(Having worked in the nearby islands, I know how delicately balanced the fresh water reserves are - bores usually located dead centre in the island etc...
and now, as they go saline , it's just a matter of time apparently before everything dies. (coconut trees already dying etc).

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/07/20/2630727.htm

Tuvalu has set a goal of a 100% shift to renewable energy by 2020, hoping to set an example to industrialised nations to cut greenhouse gases it blames for rising sea levels

http://www.tuvaluislands.com/warming.htm

"We live in constant fear of the adverse impacts of climate change. For a coral atoll nation, sea level rise and more severe weather events loom as a growing threat to our entire population. The threat is real and serious, and is of no difference to a slow and insidious form of terrorism against us."

-Saufatu Sopoanga, Prime Minister of Tuvalu, at the 58th Session of the United Nations General Assembly New York, 24th September 2003

Tuvalu is one of the places on earth that is most vulnerable to the affects of global warming. The threat of sea level rise may bring complete disaster to the 10,000 Tuvaluans residing on nine extremely low-lying coral atolls.

 

[2020hindsight]

PS I really like Suzuki's proposal (btw) to hold politicians legally liable if they ignore global warming and its effects

may bring complete disaster to the 10,000 Tuvaluans residing on nine extremely low-lying coral atolls

I think we are looking at a twist in the tale of Johnny Howard's "Pacific Solution".

Might be about to go into reverse for instance.

 

[Smurf1976]

As for pretending you're a greenie, and still protesting against action on GW

now there's the best joke I've heard all year

A good portion of mainstream environmentalists would easily fall into that category. Uranium, LNG, dams, wind turbines and so on - it's "environmentalists" who stand in the way of clean energy.

 

[wayneL]

I heard the PM of Tuvalu on the radio today ...
To be honest he'd gone beyond the recent hype about going 100% renewable ... and was warning that we (Aus and NZ) could expect to see them knocking on the door soon as "environmental refugees"

(Can't find the link to the ABC interview however.)

I can tell you, he's not joking about global warming

(Having worked in the nearby islands, I know how delicately balanced the fresh water reserves are - bores usually located dead centre in the island etc...
and now, as they go saline , it's just a matter of time apparently before everything dies. (coconut trees already dying etc).

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2009/07/20/2630727.htm

He has been mislead about Tuvalu's problems. Slight sea level rise observable is at the same rate since the little ice age. It has not accelerated.

Tuvalu's main problems have been from natural subsidence and soil compaction due to farming practices. That is the inconvenient truth.

 

[Smurf1976]

The way I see it, the original question is fundamentally about freedom of speech. Should those who disagree or wish to mock a scientific theory be allowed to do so?

That's a very dangerous question to even be raising in my view. Without dissenters from mainstream thought, man would have achieved very little over the past few centuries.

For the record, I don't recall the other side attempting to prevent free speech on the issue. They have put thier case forward, as they have a right to do so, but they haven't tried to stop others expressing their views.

With the exception of unofficial groups of individuals, that has basically always been the case in the environmental debate. The loggers, miners, dam builders and so on put their case as they had a right to do. But apart from issues of removing tresspassers on their property, they didn't even attempt to silence opposing views expressed in a peaceful manner. It's not as though those who wrote letters to newspapers, lobbied politicians or held protest marches in city streets were prevented from doing so by those who disagreed.

The very question marks a new low in the integrity of green politics in my view. A direct attack on freedom of speech for anyone who doesn't support one particular view. A very, very dangerous path for Australia or any other democracy to even contemplate.

 

[wayneL]

The way I see it, the original question is fundamentally about freedom of speech. Should those who disagree or wish to mock a scientific theory be allowed to do so?

That's a very dangerous question to even be raising in my view. Without dissenters from mainstream thought, man would have achieved very little over the past few centuries.

For the record, I don't recall the other side attempting to prevent free speech on the issue. They have put thier case forward, as they have a right to do so, but they haven't tried to stop others expressing their views.

With the exception of unofficial groups of individuals, that has basically always been the case in the environmental debate. The loggers, miners, dam builders and so on put their case as they had a right to do. But apart from issues of removing tresspassers on their property, they didn't even attempt to silence opposing views expressed in a peaceful manner.

The very question marks a new low in the integrity of green politics in my view. A direct attack on freedom of speech for anyone who doesn't support one particular view. A very, very dangerous path for Australia or any other democracy to even contemplate.

Great post Smurf! 10/10 from me.

2020 FYI

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10498927

Since instrumentation was installed in 1993 on Tuvalu's main island Funafuti, sea level has shown no discernible trend. There is some inundation evident on islands in Tuvalu, but global warming is not the cause.

It is the result of erosion, sand mining and construction projects causing an inflow of sea water.

Other factors are also involved.

Excessive use of freshwater for irrigation also causes destruction of underground freshwater reservoirs. A consequence is seawater encroachment into vegetable growing pits is occurring, but is not due to sea level rise.

Part of the problem is related also to the paving of the roads and the runway on Funafuti.

According to estimates, about one quarter of the island has been paved over. The effect of this has been to reduce infiltration of rainwater into the freshwater lens. When this increased runoff is combined with a high tide, flooding along the coast looks like the sea level is rising...... etc etc

 

[2020hindsight]

actually wayne, it's a mixture of a couple of things ....

rising ( in fact accelerating) oceans (now 3mm per year more or less)
and more severe storms (that accompany hotter oceans)
waves (storm surgee) cross the atolls , and the land goes saline - and they don;t have enough fresh water to flush the salt out.

But hey - like I say - If you're so sure that they're wrong - go tell them that!
But were I you, I'd wear some sort of a helmet.

 

[explod]

Strewth, you closed the polling fast, thread only began on the 11th instant. Spose you just got a few of like minds to get into it quick before the desenters could catch on, you's voted then closed it all up cosy.

So much for your free speech.

 

[wayneL]

actually wayne, it's a mixture of a couple of things ....

rising ( in fact accelerating) oceans (now 3mm per year more or less)
and more severe storms (that accompany hotter oceans)
waves cross the atolls , and the land goes saline - and they don;t have enough fresh water to flush the slat out.

But hey - like I say - If you're so sure that they're wrong - go tell them that!
But were I you, I'd wear some sort of a helmet.

That is counter to the evidence.

Show me proof of:

1. Accelerating sea level rises
2. More severe storms