Resisting Climate Hysteria

[2020hindsight]

I sense a touch of hysteria here.

not really
just agreeing with the ghist of this post :-
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=230853

 

[Knobby22]

I sense a touch of hysteria here.

I sense a touch of hysteria the other way. Even in those articles you quote from the Australian, they acknowledge that the reduction of Carbon Dioxide production is a good thing.

It is true that some of the left have a religious conviction rather like they do with no nuclear mines and I call them the dumb left. They are annoying, foolish and treat it as a cause a crusade and wonder why moderates are put off.

But it appears to me there is a similar community operating on the right that believes nothing should be done, who are desperete to build a group of like minded people to hold up their world view despite the evidence and have all these conspiracy theories., the dumb right. They seem more apparent on this site.

I consider myself a moderate. What is wrong with reducing the pollution in the world? You can't say we shouldn't try to do things better.

 

[Vizion]

Garpal me ole mukka The most strident voices have been the naysayer's.

Can someone show me one study that shows the earth has not warmed, that the oceans have not risen, that the planet has greater biodiversity, that this planets varied species has flourished.

How about a study that shows carbon is not in greater quantities in the atmosphere, that the temperature in Australia is going down.
How about a study that shows our forest are in better condition, that the air is safer for our children to breathe.

The chief scientist in my division spent two years as part of the Australian Antarctic Expedition from 95 to 97, I am going to listen the results gathered from their ice cores, before I listen to a few people here who do NOT believe we are causing damage to our planet. I don't care what anyone posts, there is NOT ONE FACT that supports the naysayers, it's a matter of degree's you are all arguing about. Meanwhile the damage keeps getting done...

As I have stated once before, I would rather see us err on the side of safety & put into place right now, some safeguards. Give me one good reason we should not be acting now. Since when was prevention worse than a cure?

Does anyone here actually think burning fossil fuels is the way forward? I believe that there are some really intelligent people both on this forum & in this world & it's time we started using that pool of intelligence to try to wind back some of the damage we have done. Not argue about what degree of damage we have actually caused.

Interesting fact, the time the planes stopped running after 911 the Earth's upper atmosphere's temperature, was cooler by half a degree. Make of that what you will.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Viz, we all want clean air, and a good life for our descendants, less pollution and less waste of our resources, and cleaner fuel.

I agree with you on that.

I like the bush and nature as much as the next.

However I have a great distrust of false belief, and an attribution of all change to the last 150 years of man's endeavours. Its a religion.

gg

 

[Mickel]

I consider myself a moderate. What is wrong with reducing the pollution in the world? You can't say we shouldn't try to do things better.

There is nothing wrong with that, I agree.

BUT, who says CO2 is pollution. We breathe it out, plant life(so cherished by the Greenies) depend on it for their existance.

Why won't Gore, P Wong et al debate the science of this as regards global warming so everyone can see the logic of what is proposed? The IPCC summaries have been corrupted so blatently that more and more scientists with knowledge and experience in the area are objecting to the hysteria based on the IPCC summaries.

And Gore and Wong wouldn't stand a chance in a logical debate.

 

[Julia]

I consider myself a moderate. What is wrong with reducing the pollution in the world? You can't say we shouldn't try to do things better.

Knobby, Wayne has been the chief proponent on this site with respect to reducing pollution. I've not seen anyone disagree with him.

For me, and it appears others, the concern is that Mr Rudd and his government seem determined to thrust onto Australia an ETS which many, many respected people have suggested is deeply flawed. I don't profess to have a complete understanding of the details but find it difficult to see how the handing out of free permits to pollute and/or allowing industries to buy permits to pollute will actually reduce CO2. If someone can explain to me how this will happen I'm happy to be so educated.

Many business leaders have made the point that if the costs involved are crippling to their profitability they will be forced to move their businesses to countries where they continue to pollute with abandon.
If many businesses do this, the effect on our economy is obvious.

Further, I agree with those who suggest it makes little sense for Australia to legislate the ETS before knowing the outcome of Copenhagen, i.e. if Australia is the only country to implement such a scheme it will be pointless from other than a political point of view.

I also have some sympathy for the suggestion that Mr Rudd's enthusiasm may at least in part be due to his wish to further his position on the world stage (and that UN position he wants so badly).

Most reasonable people take care to reduce pollution in any way they can.
It just seems to me a mistake to assume that anyone who is less than convinced CO2 is anthropogenic and/or is very doubtful about the usefulness of the proposed ETS (and concerned about its costs to ordinary Australians as well as business) is ipso facto a rabid polluter.

 

[Knobby22]

Many business leaders have made the point that if the costs involved are crippling to their profitability they will be forced to move their businesses to countries where they continue to pollute with abandon.
If many businesses do this, the effect on our economy is obvious.

Further, I agree with those who suggest it makes little sense for Australia to legislate the ETS before knowing the outcome of Copenhagen, i.e. if Australia is the only country to implement such a scheme it will be pointless from other than a political point of view.

It is true that all countries should work together so no country does pollute with abondon. I have to say in China's defence they have received from the west some of the most noxious manufacturing processes as the western populace would not put up witth them.

Countries like France produce far less pollution than other countries and are still able to compete. Their excellent transport systems and use of nucleur and wind energy and careful planning has allowed this.

I agree the ETS cap/trade scheme Rudd and others espouse has many problems. I would prefer a flat carbon tax that operates world wide, say 0.5% for the first year then slowly increasing.

Truthfully though, I have little hope as most businesses and politicians have no vision beyond a five year window.

 

[Calliope]

I consider myself a moderate. What is wrong with reducing the pollution in the world? You can't say we shouldn't try to do things better.

I too think pollution is the scourge of the earth. Can you show me where I was ever opposed to pollution reduction? I doubt if anyone practices pollution control more than I. My pollution footprint is tiny. However CO2 is not our enemy. It is or friend.

 

[Knobby22]

I too think pollution is the scourge of the earth. Can you show me where I was ever opposed to pollution reduction? I doubt if anyone practices pollution control more than I. My pollution footprint is tiny. However CO2 is not our enemy. It is our friend.

Yes, where would lemonade be without bubbles?

 

[Calliope]

Yes, where would lemonade be without bubbles.

Yes, and not only that, I am counting on it to play an important part in my "final exit" strategy, if I have to put it into play.

 

[Calliope]

God talks to Rudd (through Annabel Crabb);

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/gods-memo-for-kevin-and-joe-20091113-ier6.html

But I think the time has come for me to set some ground rules.

First of all - I am going to have to ask that you respect some basic intellectual property tenets. I'm happy for you to lift my ideas, but I'd like to see them acknowledged where possible. Like the loaves and the fishes, Kevin; it doesn't matter if you rebadged it as the Federal Stoves and Fridges Stimulus Scheme, it's still my concept.

Same thing with the coastal inundation idea, and the locust plagues and outbreaks of pestilence that you and Mr Garrett reference so freely in your speeches on the carbon pollution reduction scheme.

The Old Testament belongs to all of us, and you are welcome to its ideas.

I'd just like to be given a nod, is all I'm saying.

On the carbon pollution reduction scheme itself, I don't have much of an opinion.

I think it's kind of batty, but then again I arranged the original Great Flood, so I would say that, wouldn't I?

 

[Julia]

Good for Annabel Crabbe who is much more than just a very pretty face.

Seriously, it's good to see some change in the attitude of the media.
Up until recently they have (with a few exceptions via "The Australian") hung on the words of the climate change hysterics, attempting to make us all feel guilty for even drawing breath.

But, ever so gradually, a more cynical and sceptical view is beginning to be noticeable.

The media are largely responsible for public attitudes. If they only report the pronouncements of the Left, offering constant doom mongering, then the average Australian will accept that. Ditto if the contrary view were offered.
Just a reasonable balance would be good.

An example was the headlines today that coastal inundation is going to affect hundreds of thousands of households and businesses.
Only at the end of the report of the study (which of course once again just is based on computer modelling) is it pointed out that this - even if it happens - will be at least 100 years away.
I wonder if an opposing scientific view (and there will be plenty) will ever make it to print and/or broadcast?

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

It is true that some of the left have a religious conviction rather like they do with no nuclear mines and I call them the dumb left. They are annoying, foolish and treat it as a cause a crusade and wonder why moderates are put off.

But it appears to me there is a similar community operating on the right that believes nothing should be done, who are desperete to build a group of like minded people to hold up their world view despite the evidence and have all these conspiracy theories., the dumb right. They seem more apparent on this site.

I consider myself a moderate. What is wrong with reducing the pollution in the world? You can't say we shouldn't try to do things better.

Knobby,

Your post exposes naivety.

The people pushing cc, gw never talk about pollution. All they talk about is Co2 or carbon. These are key words that program the repeaters and non-thinkers. Fear creation and a "we must act now" psychology of the new religious are making their propaganda fathers proud. Their chosen word is "denier"- another key word. This fails the credibility test.

Some people talk about pollution reduction in a sensible like manner. You seem to understand the pollution problem as do I and many others. But when TAX is a result of any action naturally one has to be suspicious.

 

[Smurf1976]

I agree the ETS cap/trade scheme Rudd and others espouse has many problems. I would prefer a flat carbon tax that operates world wide, say 0.5% for the first year then slowly increasing.

World wide is the key to making any of these CO2 reduction schemes work.

But as soon as there's one coutnry exempt, that's where most of the polluting industry will end up - and that country will become the richest country on earth real fast, a reality which makes global enforcement rather difficult.

 

[Smurf1976]

Saw a classic example of what's wrong with this debate last night on TV.

An advertisement saying that we can all help by (1) using green bags at the supermarket (2) washing clothes in cold water and (3) using energy saving light bulbs.

Now, point 2 and 3 will reduce CO2 emissions under most circumstances certainly (assuming that point 2 doesn't result in replacement of clothes more often). But point 1, not using plastic bags, is outright nonsense in terms of CO2 emissions. Plastic bags may well have downsides, but to claim that not using them is a worthwhile means of reducing CO2 emissions is outright nonsense and a classic example of using CO2 to push another agenda and the sort of thing that puts thinking people at odds with the brainwashing tactics of the green movement.

 

[wayneL]

I hear that Al Bore has become the first person to become a billionaire from climate change alarmism.

Draw your own conclusions.

 

[justjohn]

Geez ,fella;s I'm in big strife ,they say that the water is rising 2mm per year ,who's going to help me with the sand bags

 

[Knobby22]

World wide is the key to making any of these CO2 reduction schemes work.

But as soon as there's one coutnry exempt, that's where most of the polluting industry will end up - and that country will become the richest country on earth real fast, a reality which makes global enforcement rather difficult.

It could be done if there was enough will. Any company associating itself with a country that allowed this exemption could be black banned. The problem is that there is a difference between conservatism and reactionary thought, and reactionary seems to be in fashion at present.

 

[Knobby22]

Knobby,

Your post exposes naivety.

The people pushing cc, gw never talk about pollution. All they talk about is Co2 or carbon. These are key words that program the repeaters and non-thinkers. Fear creation and a "we must act now" psychology of the new religious are making their propaganda fathers proud. Their chosen word is "denier"- another key word. This fails the credibility test.

.

There is definitely a non thinker section, but they are on both sides of the debate. Ignorance seems to be a valuable commodity in today's times! I am hoping the middle way succeeds.

There is so much rubbish spouted from both sides and the general media that it is hard to see the core truths. I suggest a "New Scientist" subscription for those who wish to be informed.

 

[Mr J]

I hear that Al Bore has become the first person to become a billionaire from climate change alarmism.

Draw your own conclusions.

That much? Explod described Gore as putting forward his view as a concerned citizen - yeah, concerned with money. Gore obviously doesn't believe it, or just doesn't care. I'm surprised people think of him as a credible source.