This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Resisting Climate Hysteria

Jump to new
basilio,

That is a very good response, however new discoveries are always shedding light on the actual effects of increased proportions of CO2 in the atmosphere and I'm not sure the case is completely closed on what happens next. Sorry I don't have a source, but there are reports of plankton-type blooms in areas where the seas has received a large amount of water that was formally land ice, and these blooms are acting as a form of carbon sink.

There seems to be a massive scope for future research and whilst I certainly acknowledge that we can't continue to pollute the environment, I'm not sure making enormous adjustments to national or international policy based on incomplete research is the right couse of action at this stage.
 

Hi, I would hope the answer to this following question will shed some light on the reasoning behind resistance to change of any magnitude.

Referring to the bold section, why does there have to be conclusive evidence of mans' global environmental impact to make sweeping practical changes? Or alternatively, why is there resistance to sweeping practical changes?



p.s. ideally these changes on a global scale would need no reasoning other than the path we are on is destructive and needs to be changed anyway.
 
Mofra, you've summed up here what many of us think, particularly in the light of almost no information being made generally available to the public as to how the ETS will ameliorate the global warming .

I read yesterday that dissent amongst the scientific community is increasing.
 

A small increase of many necessary things can be lethal. Small changes in the amount of a substance in a system can have massive effects, especially where that substance is of critical importance and it is normally very scarce. Without heat there would be no life on Earth, but if the temperature suddenly rose by 2-3% we would probably all die (I am talking 2-3%, not 2-3 degrees celcius).

As you say, CO2 is of critical importance, but it makes up only a tiny percentage of the atmosphere, less than half a percent. Even argon is more than twice as abundant. Because it is so scarce, we don't have to add much to the atmosphere to increase its concentration in the atmosphere very dramatically. For example, the atmosphere is about 80% nitrogen, so if we produced a heap of that, we would only change the affect nitrogen has by a small amount, say, to 80.2% (less than a 1% change), but if we put out the same amount of CO2 (and we are producing more CO2 than nitrogen, oxygen or argon, the three gases which make up the majority of the atmosphere) into the atmosphere we would take it from 0.4% or so up to 0.6% or so (a 50% change). If CO2 is doing anything particularly relevant, the effect will be increased by 50%, not just altered by a small percentage. (No, I am not saying that's exactly how much we are putting out, just demostrating the point that when something is scarce it is much more easy to alter its relative abundance and multiply its presence by a large factor).

So exactly how much will this affect us and in what way? I don't know, but I am not foolish enough to say I know it won't be much. I am prepared to say I don't know, and am willing to postulate that no one knows for sure and that we can't rule out something extreme.

It is strange that you would openly say that you have no understanding of the 'science' behind this, and then immediately go on to say that you are capable of determining that since there isn't much CO2 in the air it can't be of much importance (even though you acknowledge in the same sentence that it is of absolute importance). Two extreme self contradictions in one sentence. Nice!
 

He didn't say that, he just questions whether what he perceives to be a small change could have such great consequences. Seems a perfectly reasonable question to me.
 
Mr J said:
He didn't say that, he just questions whether what he perceives to be a small change could have such great consequences. Seems a perfectly reasonable question to me.
Click to expand...

Surely, an attempt at interpreting the data implies some understanding of the physics ('science') at work. Exactly what constitutes a 'small' amount is not easy to understand, and even he points out he has no understanding of the situation.
 

I said no such thing. That is a deliberate lie. I would have thought that lying about other members posts on this forum would not be acceptable. Two extreme lies in the one sentence. Nasty!
 
I remain sceptical of the need to have drastic change to limit global warming as

1. The change is based on limiting CO2 (generally in the Western World) and

2. The IPCC "Science" accusing CO2 as the cause of Global Warming has been discredited by many scientists who, the IPCC stated, were supporting it.

3. Politicians, who saw a great opportunity to obtain new taxation without complaint, appear to have corrupted the science through targeted funding.

I list below links to a series of 5 U-Tube videos,each approx 10mins duration, in support of my position-

Global Warming the Truth pt 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OBijSd9hipU


pt 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLQWPCmvcIA&feature=related

pt 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMjUUYMDEdU&feature=related

pt 4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=niLiJRpoW2U&NR=1

pt 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngDmgwLC0Ag&NR=1

Also, what is worrying for us Aussies, is that, if the Aust Senate passes the ETS Bill, we will appear to be one of the few countries at Copenhagen to have done so.

And has the Aust Government prepared for this with economic modeling to ensure that our economy won't collapse, given the above scenario? Well, they've assured us that our economy will continue to grow.
But, as Terry McCran has written (link below), that is not the case and our economy may well fall in a heap.

This is the link- http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,26333275-5013678,00.html

So I, and a growing number of others, remain sceptical with good reason. We would encourage an exhaustive scientific debate on the pros and cons of climate change, before we agree to any carbon or other new tax that is likely to destabilise our economy, at the very least.
 
Wysiwyg said:
Referring to the bold section, why does there have to be conclusive evidence of mans' global environmental impact to make sweeping practical changes? Or alternatively, why is there resistance to sweeping practical changes?
Click to expand...
It is a good question (actually, excellent in theory) however in practical terms any chance comes with a trade off, and that would most likely come in the form of a direct impact on the standard of living of tens of millions of people, or an indirect impact via an increase in the cost of goods manufactured & transported by means of higher energy costs.

People who are getting by on under US$2 per day already can little afford to have the cost of food rise for example, yet with the chance of production of certain arrable lands from food to alternate energy sources, we are already seeing an impact. Heck, even Italy have had protests at the cost increases in pasta!

Once technology advances to the point where the cost increases are minimal or at least bearable for energy production then any major changes will be much less forceful and much more palatable.
 
what
the science that there's a new classification of fire risk
or that IPCC predicted things would get drier and hotter?
 
2020hindsight said:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/18/2745742.htm
the new castrophopic rating ...
no hysteria - just sad that so many don't accept that things are changing (and fast)
and all consistent with or even faster than IPCC forecasts.
Click to expand...

Adelaide in Feb 2004 has just endured its 17th consecutive day with a maximum temperature at or above 30 °C. This is the longest spell of temperatures above this mark ever recorded in Adelaide, the previous record being 14 days in 1956 and 1930.

The hottest day in Adelaide was 12 January 1939, when temperature reached 46.1 °C.

"If the world wants to achieve an 80% reduction in carbon dioxide emissions below 1990 levels this really means returning to 1939 levels of emissions."
quoted by Roger Pielke.

Great so we reduce CO2 levels back to 1939 levels to see Adelaide fry again.

Perhaps its the IPCC hot wind full ****e that is driving up the temps !
 
lasty said:
Perhaps its the IPCC hot wind full ****e that is driving up the temps !
Click to expand...

It is certainly driving up climate change hysteria, in spite of the best efforts of people like wayne and Mickel trying to calm it down.
 
2020hindsight said:
what
the science that there's a new classification of fire risk
or that IPCC predicted things would get drier and hotter?
Click to expand...

So you look at a small regional area as proof of accuracy of prediction? That is serious cherry picking there. That is not science, that is cognitive bias.

There are various areas that are much colder and wetter than predicted and by that standard could be used to "prove" (LOL) that the next ice age is on its way.

It still says nothing about co2 - nothing!
 
Mofra said:
Once technology advances to the point where the cost increases are minimal or at least bearable for energy production then any major changes will be much less forceful and much more palatable.
Click to expand...
Yes this state of affairs will likely bring a flood of creative juices with regard to earth friendlier ways of living. A fine result from this debate is the raising of awareness globally of forthcoming changes to certain areas of lifestyle. The precise changes yet unknown should be nothing to fear and will be a great opportunity for companies to manufacture earth friendly (lower impact) objects, and more importantly, the consumer to prefer them. For it is ultimately the billions of consumers and not a handful of politicians and scientists that need to effect the most profound changes to their living habits. Resistance and 'letting go' of old ways will be a side effect for many.
 
Wysiwyg said:
For it is ultimately the billions of consumers and not a handful of politicians and scientists that need to effect the most profound changes to their living habits.
Click to expand...
That in itself is an excellent summary - much of what has been achieved in human history has been despite our leadership, rather than because of it.
 
Mofra said:
That in itself is an excellent summary - much of what has been achieved in human history has been despite our leadership, rather than because of it.
Click to expand...

I agree, and these achievements were usually drive by sceptics.
 
wayneL said:
So you look at a small regional area as proof of accuracy of prediction? That is serious cherry picking there. That is not science, that is cognitive bias.
Click to expand...
I believe I said that the fire risk problem is consistent with predictions
 
wayneL said:
So you look at a small regional area as proof of accuracy of prediction? That is serious cherry picking there. That is not science, that is cognitive bias.
Click to expand...
On a side note, I did read a report over 12 months ago that some scientists expect global warming to make the UK up to 2 degrees celcius cooler as melting land ice & polar cap ice disrupt currents in the North Sea & North Atlantic.
Not sure you really needs things cooled in your part of the world though Wayne
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

August 2024 DDD
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
19K
ducati916
ZYAU - S&P/ASX 300 High Yield Plus ETF
Replies
0
Views
1K
divs4ever
How do we deal with bushfires in a warming climate?
8 9 10
Replies
199
Views
11K
basilio
All trading needs to cease for 14 days prior to Monday open in Sydney
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
11K
divs4ever
R
When you invest, remember to commune with the dead
Replies
2
Views
3K
Wysiwyg
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...