Poll on Action on Global Warming

[noirua]

The poll seems to be exclusively an Aussie, from here, based philosophy.
I've had quite a lot of exchange of information with those at "Rising Tide", and of course their ideals are about 85% correct. The problem is money or/and what would replace coal and oil in the space of a few years - often they go quiet on this part of the discussion.

In general coalminers see about 30 to 40 years remaining for coal as the major energy in power stations and furnaces. Increasingly nuclear power will take over and all the other energies, the whole rag tag and bobtail, will provide a relatively small part of that.

One day all power will come from the sun, but that's too far away to consider as a major component as yet.

 

[GumbyLearner]

Fair call noirua

There is no immediate solution.

But hopefully 'carbon capture' is not a theory.

 

[2020hindsight]

perhaps another option ...

just do it ! - in the interests of anti-pollution, anti-waste of resources, anti-waste of the environment,

pro forests, pro habitat, pro critters, pro-oceans, coral etc .....

or if you prefer, pro-awakening of man's understanding of the limitations of what this planet can sustain, population-wise and "development-wise" (= tar , cement and smokestacks?) clean up of the rivers, oceans, better use of fertilisers, more awareness of what we are doing , algael blooms in inland lakes in Austria for cryysake - certainly in the Nepean R in Sydney, where it's too poisonous to swim sometimes ...

or if you prefer, pro-innovation in the cleaner industries, pro-opportunity for Aussie bussinesses (provided they get their act together sooner rather than later - you can bet your life that to insist on staying with "the old", will only mean that you're passed by "the new" - in the same way that California has taken our recent solar generation plant and run with it - because we were too much into protecting "old ways")

... seize the momentum , join the world wide movement for a never again opportiunity to get some international cooperation and a new mindset.

 

[GumbyLearner]

Just curious

Do you eat meat 2020?

 

[wayneL]

Just curious

Do you eat meat 2020?

This will be interesting.

 

[agro]

I certainly think there is GW

even Summer is delayed and it feels like Winter in December!!

 

[2020hindsight]

Just curious

Do you eat meat 2020?

no m8, I only eat turnips grown in the tibetan highlands

talk about obfuscation

 

[GumbyLearner]

no m8, I only eat turnips grown in the tibetan highlands

talk about obfuscation

Fair Enough 2020!

Just that you from your last post it sounded like you were into lentil burgers

 

[Prospector]

Global warming as a consequence of man's activities has become a new religion; it is impossible to sort the fact from the fiction.

Travelling to Tasmania over the weekend, I read that carbon released from bushfires is 3/4 of Tasmania's carbon output through industry. Given that bushfires, volcanoes etc are naturally occurring phenomena, maybe nature 'expects' it to occur? And that man's contribution is rather small.

Adelaide's annual temperature hasnt increased since the commencement of recording, so we should be excused from participating.

Global warming has also become the excuse for Governments to avoid the real reasons why the River Murray has been screwed - which is really overallocation upstream.

 

[Green08]

I do agree more should be done to cut emissions yes Gobal Warming.

More so the air we are breathing is so polluted.
Fish stocks are almost gone in many parts of the world.
Quality and access to basic water is diminishing whether through lack of facilities, over burdened resources, lack of rain.

Sydney is shocking. The number of asthmatic suffers is increasing and increasing at younger ages. As are skin conditions.

I've found when in the country my asthma clearups in a few days.

It will be interesting to see if we slow down that the changes may slow down or be steady for a while. Though there are other problems out there underway which need immediate addressing - what happened to the issue of Sydney not having enough water in the next few years? Haven't heard alot and with the credit crisis I doubt much will happen in the next year. When they had access to money and time like typical pollies they bicker. That is the way of most problems people are idle until it is an expensive difficult discussion.

Agree Prospector Part of the Murray Darling was siphened off and there has been less rain in the primary area too.

 

[Calliope]

Of course Mr Rudd opted for (d) while keeping his fingers crossed and hoping that that Copenhagen talks are a failure. A bet each way; save a little face with the warmers while trying to do no real damage to the economy.

 

[Julia]

I do agree more should be done to cut emissions yes Gobal Warming.

More so the air we are breathing is so polluted.

Maybe move away from a big city?
Clean air here where I'm living.

Fish stocks are almost gone in many parts of the world.
Quality and access to basic water is diminishing whether through lack of facilities, over burdened resources, lack of rain.

A basic factor, often ignored here in Qld at least, is the dumb encouragement by the government of increased population when the water and other infrastructure has not kept pace.

 

[Green08]

Maybe move away from a big city?
Clean air here where I'm living.QUOTE]

I have moved though I come back to see my partner.

Not many people who would like to move to a cleaner area can in this monetary crisis. Those that live there - remain grateful as other things may impede your health.

I was speaking generally that most cities in the world have dreadful air quality. Whether it be by lack of government intervention or weather related the weight of warm air especially when it has a higher humity is keeping pollution in areas longer.

Sure there are breezes and wind but as a whole if emssions are rising from cars, fires, industry globally it comes to the base of increased pollution in the air more so than others but increased non- the less.

Any one planted 10,000 trees lately?

 

[Green08]

Lets do some basic maths.....

There are fewer trees in the world every year. Any one that challenges that is nuts.

Increased poplulation let alone cars, electrical stations, fires, chimneys, have a increased Carbon emissions at an increased rate especially over th past 10 years. All humans expell carbon dioxide on each breath out. 6.8 billion minmium breathing each second.

Sorry but trees are the largest organ on earth turning carbon into oxygen.

Unless there are unlimited oxygen tanks in the future for each human the quality of oxygen is diminished.

You have a global problem. Whether you believe in global warming is actually besides the point. There is less vegetation on this earth period.

I wonder if any one has done a sciencific study on the quality of oxygen in the next 20 or 50 years??

I have children and care about their health and future.

 

[Wysiwyg]

We as a race have the ability to

1) cap population numbers
2) replenish food sources
3) use renewable energy sources
4) replenish forests
5) recycle/reuse everything man-made
6) use fresh water sparingly
7) keep the lands and waterways clean

the reasons we don`t and won`t

1) different groups have different ideologies
2) all wired to consume relentlessly
3) all wired with choice -- care versus don`t care

 

[Green08]

We as a race have the ability to

1) cap population numbers
2) replenish food sources
3) use renewable energy sources
4) replenish forests
5) recycle/reuse everything man-made
6) use fresh water sparingly
7) keep the lands and waterways clean

the reasons we don`t and won`t

1) different groups have different ideologies
2) all wired to consume relentlessly
3) all wired with choice -- care versus don`t care

mmmmmm some plausible answers / questions?

1) Mandatory condoms or the V or tie after 1 or 2 perhaps?
2) Jesus is around with a fish basket just have to find him. Doesn’t have a share in this institution so should be a good bet he won't collapse.
3) Who is renewing enough?
4) Love the idea could you persuade the rest of the global to join in and guarantee perfect weather conditions for premium growth?
5)Yes I do try not sure about the rest of the global population
6) This could be your hardest. Showers medium warm at 3 mins good luck with teenagers
7) Which planet are you on? I'm all for this anyone care to join in and stop those noxious ignorant people dumping chemicals and waste.

1) True, Each to their own. May depend on if you have children, grandchildren, just want to make money and burn around in cars, lots of sex -takes energy to transform rubber into condoms etc, energy to drill the oil to make petrol for the car to get the doctor to hospital to assess you etc. Care about animals, the future, your meal in 2 years time.
2) How you consume is an individual practice. Guilt is an individual emotion.
3) Agree fully, those that care and don't care. Those that know and care but can't do much due to their surrounding lack of facilities or fully understanding. Does that care and try to teach others but are limited by the flip of paper - money to actually make a noticeable change. Does that can't process a world beyond their next hit for pure self-indulgence reasons
.

 

[2020hindsight]

If anyone's interested in the "vehemence" in discussions between WayneL and I on this stuff ... I'd probably say it goes back to this BBC Channel 4 show... The Great Global Warming Swindle (by Martin Durkin)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

If anyone’s interested, I started off quite impressed by that show.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=135445&highlight=fatalistic#post135445
refer post #14

Wayne - finally found time to listen to it all. Have to say I owe you a massive apology. Fantastic. In my defence as to my initial reaction ... it starts with what I consider to be a spindoctored twisted logic

However by post #16 on that thread I was getting real suspicious – when I discovered the NASA graph was nothing like what Durkins had quoted it to be etc

by post #109, I’d identified a number of "problems"
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=179638&highlight=durkin#post179638

ANYWAY, the first step in the sequence if anyone is interested in the arguments for and against that program (and if they haven't already seen it) is to watch that show, "The Great Global Warming Swindle" :-

The Great Global Warming Swindle (in 8 parts)

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=ONv3JSbiOag part 1 of 8 10m

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=WN14URuh67s part 2 of 8 10m

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=RJEwwuZ_2Cs part 3 of 8 10m

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=aZP8dE9CGwE part 4 of 8 10m

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=zTJV2ZF7Pw4 part 5 of 8 10m

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=-BcG_WsDioc part 6 of 8 10m

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=8h_GgE9VKz8 part 7 of 8 10m

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=jnRb_7rnWp0 part 8 of 8 10m

 

[2020hindsight]

Then came the ABC's program with discussion by panel of experts :-
Great Global Warming Swindle ABC Debates (in 9 parts)

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=GeQfD2DNnUQ part 1 of 9 – 1m45s

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=F25gZvmMJJM part 2 – 10m

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=yYaAlyu8vbA part 3 – 10m

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=hx4jnddLoIQ part 4 – 10m

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=U-r8dtdLMls part 5 – 10m

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=_8cH8JMMew8 part 6 – 10m

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=QIzztkyovjc part 7 – 10m
CO2 follows and provides feedback; procrastination penalty , level of risk, etc

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=yYaAlyu8vbA part 8 – 10m

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=96Cb3sWjRGY part 9 of 9 – 3m50s

In the end, I became of the opinion that the Great Global Warming Swindle was indeed a swindle in itself. And in any case the wise thing to do imo was / is to act on this. And the more I’ve read since, the more sure I am on that score.

 

[2020hindsight]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle

The film's original working title was "Apocalypse my ****",[4] but the title The Great Global Warming Swindle was later adopted

The UK's Channel 4 premiered the documentary on 8 March 2007. The channel described the film as "a polemic that drew together the well-documented views of a number of respected scientists to reach the same conclusions. This is a controversial film but we feel that it is important that all sides of the debate are aired."[5] According to Hamish Mykura, Channel 4's head of documentaries, the film was commissioned "to present the viewpoint of the small minority of scientists who do not believe global warming is caused by anthropogenic production of carbon dioxide."[6]

Although the documentary was welcomed by global warming sceptics, it was criticised heavily by many scientific organisations and individual scientists (including two of the film's contributors[7][8]). The film's critics argued that it had misused and fabricated data, relied on out-of-date research, employed misleading arguments, and misrepresented the position of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.[9][10][11][12]

Channel 4 and Wag TV (the production company) accepted some of the criticism, correcting a few errors in subsequent releases.[13] However according to Bob Ward (former spokesman for the Royal Society), this still left five out of seven of the errors and misleading arguments which had been previously attacked by him and 36 other scientists in an open letter.[11]

Carl Wunsch
Carl Wunsch, professor of Physical Oceanography at MIT, is featured in the Channel 4 version of the programme. Afterwards he said that he was "completely misrepresented" in the film and had been "totally misled" when he agreed to be interviewed.[33][7] He called the film "grossly distorted" and "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two."[34] Wunsch was reported to have threatened legal action[34] and lodged a complaint with Ofcom. He also raised objections as to how his interview material was used:
....
Although Wunsch has admitted that he finds the statements at both extremes of the global change debate distasteful [7] he wrote in a letter dated March 15, 2007 that he believes climate change is "real, a major threat, and almost surely has a major human-induced component".

 

[2020hindsight]

Might add this one here.
"Andrew Bolt is still stuck in stage one of the denial game".
Although written in 2005, I'd say that it's still the case. - but who knows, he changes his mind all the time. .
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/here-are-the-facts-bolt/2005/10/07/1128562994584.html

The scientist versus the columnist:
Tim Flannery says Andrew Bolt is in denial about climate change

Here are the facts, Bolt
October 8, 2005

In the lastest salvo in the climate change debate, scientist Tim Flannery says the "errors" Andrew Bolt discovered in his book are, in fact, howlers on the columnist's part.

A WRITER named Andrew Bolt has recently published two articles (Herald Sun, September 28, October 5) calling into question my integrity, as well as that of The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald. He claims to have discovered errors in my book, The Weather Makers: The History and Future Impact of Climate Change, and that I have "a green hatred of our industrialised society". He also seems infuriated that I have ignored him and refused to say sorry.

The "errors" that Bolt supposedly discovers in my work, extracted in The Age, are in fact howlers on his part. Indeed, so egregious are some that it's hard to believe that Bolt has not set out to mislead his readers. Let's look at five of the biggest whoppers.

1 Bolt says that I claim that climate has been stable for the past 10,000 years. This is not so. In my book I reprint the graph that documents northern hemisphere climate variability over the past 1000 years, and enter into an extended discussion of well-known variations such as the Medieval Warm Period. Either Bolt has not read the book he is critiquing, or he is lying through his teeth. The point I do make, however, is that variability in average global temperature over the past 10,000 years has been small when compared with earlier periods. This is indisputable.

2 Bolt accuses me of saying that Katrina was the most powerful hurricane on record. Katrina is not mentioned in my book, which went to press before Katrina and Rita devastated the Gulf Coast. ...

3 Bolt denies that President George Bush acknowledges that humans are causing global warming. The G8 leaders (including Bush) who convened at Gleneagles earlier this year signed a communique that stated: "Climate change is a serious and long-term challenge that has the potential to affect every part of the globe. We know that increased need and use of fossil fuels, and other human activities, contribute in large part to increases in greenhouse gases associated with the warming of our Earth's surface. While uncertainties remain in our understanding of climate science, we know enough to act now to put ourselves on a path to slow and, as the science justifies, stop then reverse the growth of greenhouse gases."

4 ... hurricanes and cyclones
... Suffice to say here that hurricanes require warm seawater to form, ... for the past few years the Gulf of Mexico has been warmer than 28 degrees through the hurricane season, which explains why hurricanes passing over these waters become supercharged and so dangerous....

5 In his second article, Bolt becomes confused about timelines and temperature, and inadvertently adds weight to the argument that global warming is liable to lead to large sea-level rises. ... Bolt's insight suggests that we might have already committed the planet to rises in sea level of about this magnitude. I hope he is wrong.

Bolt declares that I have a green hatred for our industrialised society. In my book I point out the dangers to the Australian economy of ignoring climate change, and also the opportunities for wealth creation inherent in the shift to the new low-emissions economy. The smart money is already on gas and the renewables, and all that is holding back a wealth-boom based on geothermal energy, gas, wind and solar is good government policy. Australia is exceptionally rich in these resources, and so stands to gain more than most other nations from making the shift. I don't doubt that Bolt loves our industrialised society as much as I do, but his deception on climate change threatens to damage our future wealth and wellbeing.

...
Andrew Bolt appears not to know the first thing about climate change or that the debate has moved on: now everyone from BP to SwissRe has ceased arguing about the reality of climate change, and is now focused on what should be done about it.

the four stages of denial :-

British environmenalist George Monbiot has documented the four stages of denial experienced by the climate change nay-sayers.

1. First they said that climate change didn't exist.
2. Then that it wasn't caused by human activity.
3. As the proof of human involvement became overwhelming, they switched to saying that climate change would bring some benefits.
4. Now most are saying that it's simply too late to act to avert climate change, so let's do nothing.
Of course, they are dangerously wrong on all counts.

Andrew Bolt is still stuck in stage one of the denial game. He is, however, part of a shrinking and discredited minority - which has to be a good thing in a country that is still, per capita, the worst greenhouse polluter on the planet.