- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,338
- Reactions
- 17,649
I had energy efficient lights before most had even heard of Al.
I had energy efficient lights before most had even heard of Al.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?
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.I'm very confused by the debate, no, argument here.
Are there people on the forum who are not convinced by climate change?
Further evidence that you don't actually listen.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?
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.
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.: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.
Urgent?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)..
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.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?
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.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
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.
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
"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.
PS I really like Suzuki's proposal (btw) to hold politicians legally liable if they ignore global warming and its effects
I think we are looking at a twist in the tale of Johnny Howard's "Pacific Solution".may bring complete disaster to the 10,000 Tuvaluans residing on nine extremely low-lying coral atolls
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.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
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.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
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.
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
That is counter to the evidence.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.
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?