if you dont believe in global warming sign this [Archive]

Sparhawk

13th November 2009, 05:17 PM

To fight an illness- it costs money
To fight a recession - it costs money
To fight poverty - it costs money
To fight climate change - it costs money

To fix these global issues it costs money, we can argue forever about who will should have to shoulder that burden (China, US, Europe etc). In the end though, if we want to fight climate change, at least for the short term, the end result is it's going to cost us all money. If not through direct means like taxes, then indirectly via costs of goods and services (most of which we get supplied from outside Aus).

I don't want to pay more money (already I'll be paying off my home until I retire), but I am also prepared to face the reality of the situation, which ever side of government it comes from.

tea lady

13th November 2009, 06:17 PM

My beef isn't global warming, it's Dudd and his rush and he won't talk about the costs that we will have to incur, which ulitimately has to push the CPI up and thus interest rates.That's cos we had a late start cos nothing was done before. And the cost? We get to pay either way. At least if we do something we get something out of it in the end. Before the polluters got to make a mess without any recompense. We just had to turn a blind eye. A small price to pay for them getting rich I guess. But now we find its not just a mess that we get to live with, its changing everything and we don't get to turn a blind eye no matter how much we want to. Barnaby Joice is the Dudd.:rolleyes:

jimbur

13th November 2009, 07:36 PM

That's cos we had a late start cos nothing was done before. And the cost? We get to pay either way. At least if we do something we get something out of it in the end. Before the polluters got to make a mess without any recompense. We just had to turn a blind eye. A small price to pay for them getting rich I guess. But now we find its not just a mess that we get to live with, its changing everything and we don't get to turn a blind eye no matter how much we want to. Barnaby Joice is the Dudd.:rolleyes:

:2tsup::2tsup::2tsup:
Nice one Anne-Maria,
Cheers,
Jim

glenn k

13th November 2009, 07:41 PM

A couple of thousand years ago the polar cap came down to Berlin and except for a few ups and downs it's been getting smaller ever since. Why is CO2 now the problem now? We have had ice ages come and go in the past was it dinosaus farting to much last time?
I don't know if CO2 is causing a problem now; but we have a nuclear lobby saying it is, oil companies saying it isn't, Brokers wanting to make a killing trading carbon credits saying it is,greenies wanting to save trees saying it is. None of these really care about global warming just there pet projects. So what is the general public that knows bugga all supposed to think? What ever the media tell them as usual.
To reduce CO2 maybe we should support Gunns and chop all the trees down chip them make paper etc them bury it in land fill what a great carbon sink.

johnc

13th November 2009, 09:47 PM

Most of the world has moved on from these purile anti global warming arguements. We should be discussing what can be done, rather than kicking against it like that serial drongo Joyce and his side kick Nick Minchin.

China amongst others is actually investing huge amounts into alternative power, in the end the world will start to tackle this properly and we will be left at the wharf and those who got in early, developed the technologies and marketed them will do very well. We will again pretend to be the clever country while we buy in what we have to as we get our house in order.

FWIW the avarage Aussie produces five times as much CO2 as the average Chinese.

Gingermick

13th November 2009, 09:59 PM

so is there going to be masses of extra plant growth with all the extra CO2 in the atmosphere?

johnc

13th November 2009, 10:06 PM

That depends on the rate we reduce our forests and on the amount of rainfall available to promote growth. The dryness we are experiencing is also effecting Asia, and reducing agricultural output there. Dont tell Queensland or NSW at the moment, their feet are far to wet at the moment to believe you.

tea lady

13th November 2009, 10:22 PM

so is there going to be masses of extra plant growth with all the extra CO2 in the atmosphere?Yes, but it won't be as nourishing and you'll have to eat all day to get enough nutriants.

The only ones bleating about it being bad for the economy are the ones trying to sell coal fired electricity and oil.:rolleyes: If we use less power they won't make as much money. They can't work out how to make money from a more economical society.

BobL

13th November 2009, 10:28 PM

BJ or KR, you're still putting your trust in a politician

SiJ

13th November 2009, 10:42 PM

On the head, Tea Lady :2tsup:

FRB Design

13th November 2009, 10:52 PM

Sign it or dont sign it. either way neither you or I could do so with any certainty or not.

But if signing some pissy politicians petition makes you feel that you have done your part then sign away.

REMEMBER THE MOST DESTRUCTIVE SPECIES ON THIS PLANET IS HOMOSAPIAN!

MANS WANTS HAVE FAR OUT WAYED HIS NEEDS!

Gingermick

14th November 2009, 12:12 AM

surely with higher temperatures we would get more evaporation, thus more precipitation. Wont do me much good as I require more proteins and fats and get sugar highs from carbs.
What really gets me is that the current boom we are experiencing (albeit with the credit crisis) is being driven by coal and iron ore. and iron ore needs good quality coal to coke. Our present lifestyle, our comfort, is off the back of carbon based resources. The herd (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Herd_%28Australian_band%29), for example, cancelled a concert in Sarina for some ludicrous reason about not wanting to support coal mining, but they wouldn't have had the opportunity to do what they do without it.
I used to believe the talk, but questioning the dogma now is akin to questioning McCarthy in America in 1955.:)

Ashore

14th November 2009, 12:40 AM

Global warming is a myth , even the pollies and the ultra greenies dont use the term anymore, they now say " climate change" , so before you blindly follow rudd's grand plan for this new tax at least look at the facts
This preposed ETS will cost you more to go to work
Will cost you more every time you turn on any electrical device
Will cost more for every slice of bread you eat

Will not reduce co2 emmisions by 0.01%

and will proberly reduce the standard of living for your children
No one in their right mind is against reducing pollution in any form and this ETS will not reduce any form of pollution, Rudd is trying to push a new tax on australia weeks before the copenhagen convention why , is it so this small man can appear big on the world stage ,
One last thing before the pro lobby gets into me does anyone here fully understand this new tax , how it will be collected , implemented or even how it will be spent :?

Skew ChiDAMN!!

14th November 2009, 09:56 AM

One last thing before the pro lobby gets into me does anyone here fully understand this new tax , how it will be collected , implemented or even how it will be spent :?

I don't think even the pollies have thoroughly thought it through that far. Yet.

My main concern is that if implemented they'll issue "free permits" to what they class as essential industries, as was done in the EU ETS.

There, the power industries got these "free permits," made record-breaking profits and still raised the prices of power to keep them "in line with what people are paying elsewhere." :~

Somehow, I find it difficult to believe that our crop of pollies will learn from someone else's mistakes, no matter how obvious in hindsight.

Calm

14th November 2009, 11:26 AM

You can call it what ever you like - or even argue that it does/doesn't exist but

As a farmer, if the lack of rain, seemingly higher temps are climate change and this is going to continue at this rate then in 30 years Australia will be too hot & dry to live in.

Were the changes on farms to continue at this rate for the next 10 years Ballarat (once regarded as one of the wettest places in Vic will have no town water. You can blame the pollies for not building dams but when you have a dam in every major waterway and they are about 9% full what will more dams do. If you cant get enough rain to fill the ones you have why build more. So to go from a annual 36+ inch rainfall to about 12 to 15 in ten years, in another 10 years we will be desert.

So lets hope that it is weather patterns or climate cycles because if it is climate change, global warming or anything else happening at this rate then we are stuffed and whatever you do/change it will make not one bit of difference.

BTW i bet all these costs/charges etc all have a tax component so how serious are they really - just more revenue for a greedy pack of pollies.

Cheers

glenn k

14th November 2009, 04:26 PM

I don't think even the pollies have thoroughly thought it through that far. Yet.

My main concern is that if implemented they'll issue "free permits" to what they class as essential industries, as was done in the EU ETS.

There, the power industries got these "free permits," made record-breaking profits and still raised the prices of power to keep them "in line with what people are paying elsewhere." :~

Somehow, I find it difficult to believe that our crop of pollies will learn from someone else's mistakes, no matter how obvious in hindsight.

i hadn't heard of these "free permits" If so why does Europe import wood pellets from the US to feed in 10% with coal to make what they clasify as low carbon electricity. They just ignore the energy to make the pellets and to cart them across the atlantic.
I maybe a sceptic but I believe most politicians only concern is to get re-elected.

Sebastiaan56

15th November 2009, 08:28 AM

I maybe a sceptic but I believe most politicians only concern is to get re-elected

Well said and the heart of the matter. I remember some interviews with Barnaby Joyce in the early days where he calmly stated that he would at the maximum see two terms in office as the effect of Canberra was corrupting and he didnt want to end up just another piece of apparatchik. Well guess whats happened. This is just a ploy to keep the votes coming. At least he doesnt have the nauseating self righteous pseudo christian posturing of St Steve Fielding.

Most concerning is that these poor gullible people are being fed by the American Republican right. We cant even have our own debate here in Australia, we import their vitriole, tactically and intellectually. There is only one place where the debate rages in such a black and white manner and that is America. But then what can you say of a country where 20% believe evolution is a hoax. For an insight into the tactics watch Sarahs Palin's speeches on healthcare reform. Misleading and innaccurate statements are deliberate. But the climate of insularity it creates ensures a loyal voter base. Very clever really.

Its actually too late to do anything about climate change. Adaption is what is called for now. We may bitch about it here because we have to move but the real affect will be to the people of the Hindus and particularly countries like Bangladesh. As the Himalayas dry up there will be boat people on a scale that not even 1000 John Howards will be able to deal with.

kiwigeo

15th November 2009, 04:07 PM

So what is the general public that knows bugga all supposed to think? What ever the media tell them as usual.

If I know bugger all about something that's important then I generally tear myself away from my mobile phone or my X-box and get clued up by doing a bit of reading and making use of the internet (its not all and spam).

Clued up people are empowered people.

artme

16th November 2009, 08:01 AM

The debate will rage for years to come. Whether people are responsible for what is happening is one debate, and we may never know the answer to that. My thought is that we may be responsible and therefore we should do whatever is possible to at least slow down our rates of pollution.

The second debate concerns the need to sign and adhere to such things as the Tokyo Protocol and the Copenhagen Agreement. This debate should be very concerning for all of us. One side of that debate is very disconcerting and deals with the possibility of ceding sovereign rights to some amorphous unelected body.

What ever your views on these issues I think that Brnaby Joyce's partition is foolish simply because of its narrow focus and the rather clever play with human nature. I fear many will sign this without any real knowledge or informed opinion.

In terms of squandering our resources it is interesting to note the lack of effective action by politicians of all persuasions on both sides of the pacific.
Take Australia. I read where researchers had developed a superior road sealant to asphalt- tar if you like. This was made from sugar cane. Whatever happened to this? Another example is the process developed at UQ ( I think I remember this correctly ) whereby twice as much energy could be extracted from coal than is presently the case. This would halve the amount of coal used to generate electricity. Has the Government backed this with extra funds and made its application an urgent priority? You know the answer.

Remember when John Howard talked about Australia developing our own alcohol technology? Didn't happen, probably won't happen. There was no need to reinvent the wheel in any case. Brasil has developed this technology and Australia could have simply purchased it from them to fast track its implementation.
Sao Palo in Brasil has decreased air pollution by some 20%-25% over the last 25 years due to the use of fuel alcohol. All new cars sold here must be what they call "Flex" i.e they must be able to run on petrol, alcohol, or gas. They do, and they do it well. The air in Brazilian cities is certainly nicer to breathe
in the 22 years I have been coming back and forth.

Why isn't more emphasis given to solar energy for heating water and producing electricity? All over Turkey, Greece and Spain tis is the case and there are no government subsidies. In Spain certain aspects of solar energy are simply compulsory.

Whatever is done there will be a cost. So why not just get in and do it?

hughie

16th November 2009, 09:32 AM

Whatever is done there will be a cost. So why not just get in and do it?

A can if worms this one :U

But well said, much of what you say in reference to govts is true. Big business etc is governed by self interest. Some thing the Labour Party has alway insisted on as being a bankable commodity :U

Reminds me of the storey about Tesla who came up with polyphase power ie AC. JP Morgan who was financing his endeavours at the time argued it was a goldmine, when Tesla suggested it could be made free to everyone on the planet.

The bottom line is that vested interest wants control and no competition.

damian

16th November 2009, 09:51 AM

Global warming/climate change is a scam.

I love how the socialists have rebranded themselves "progressive" in a pathetic attempt to kid themselves they are less pig ignorant than the conservatives.

Go ahead and vote up your ets. It'll help not at all and I won't be paying the bills that arise from it.

If you happen to be on reticulated gas have a look at this :

Ceramic Fuel Cells Limited :: BlueGen (http://www.cfcl.com.au/BlueGen/)

Fight pollution, don't be sucked in by the mentalists...

Ben from Vic.

16th November 2009, 10:34 AM

I am unconvinced either way because neither side can be trusted. One thing I am sure of is that global warming/climate change is a great excuse to get money and control/power.

Waldo

16th November 2009, 01:52 PM

As a last post to this I want to add:

It's undeniable that with the CTS it will cost us at the hip pocket and all businesses will get stung unless they are running off cow dung to generate their power consumption.

Every operational aspect of my day to day running will increase.

And I'll be passing those costs onto my clients, as will every other business - so everything you currently buy or services you pay for will cost more, so living will cost you more - and I doubt that your income will rise accordingly.

Phil Spencer

16th November 2009, 02:25 PM

Looks like dear old Barnaby has been out in the sun to long again.

The thing is what if? Can we afford to put our heads in the sand and risk sunburnt bums, we should take climate change seriously, stop talking and arguing and take actions.

At the very least if the sceptics are right we should be using our resources sparingly, to go on using resources at the rate we are doing now we won't have to worry, things will take care of them selves as we will have used up all the resources we have.

Then again if climate change is real, with more CO2 in the air the trees may grow quicker and that means mote wood.:)

damian

16th November 2009, 03:14 PM

The "what if" argument has been put many times. It doesn't hold water. What your actually suggesting is imposing a signifignat tax on everyone in the developed world just in case carbon emissions are driving us toward catastrophic climate change. You could apply the same logic to meteor strikes and say everyone should live underground.

If you make a study of the data, as opposed to the models, human driven climate change is not certain.

None of what's been in the media is proper science. There are tremendous vested interests on both sides, and as I've said before a PhD is no garantee of intelligence let alone moral fibre. I know 100's of PhD's, had to work with them for many years. There are some who are smart and who I spend time with voluntarily, but these are the minority.

I find it astounding that people are so willing to impose additional hardship on others barely getting by. Double my electricity bill, no problem I'm financially comfortable. I am well aware however that there are single income families, people on minimum wage etc barely getting by now. Double their energy costs ? I want to be convinced before I support that. What if doesn't cut it, not even close.

It is doubtful that the ETS will make enough of a difference to carbon levels let alone climate change. It will put $ in the pockets of a lot of the same people who brought on the credit collapse and subsequent worldwide recession. Have a good long look at the backgrounds of the people prominent in the pro-ets camp.

While your at it take a good long look at the enviroment movement. They are a mix of thieves and self gratifying morons. Mentalists, not enviromentalists. The first type are out to line thier pockets at anyone's expense that they can manage to con, the latter sit around sipping their late's in their inner city slums complaining about what everyone else is doing, and offering no sensible solutions.

It bewilders me that these people who claim to love nature for the most part not only live as far from it as they can but assume people like me who voluntarily live in the bush want to clear fell everything in sight. I recall well surprising a "greenie" friend years ago. He'd been to a talk by some self righteous moron about how "green" his new house was. I looked over the flyer and pointed out I do 80% of what was on it and among my neighbours we'd account for all of it. 2 key differences, we do it as much because it's cheap as enviromental, and we don't feel compelled to launch a lecture tour to tell everyone how great we are.

If the government are so hell bent on reducing pollution there are plenty of carrot approaches, rather than this universal stick. Ask you federal member why the photovoltaic rebate was killed off then reinstated in it's current form, ask them why they aren't pushing heat pump water heaters ? ask them why bluegen isn't on the rebate list ? (no personal interest just think it's a good idea). There are plenty of ways the government could encourage rollout of lower pollution solution at very low cost to the taxpayer like teh bulk buying schemes that died immediately after the pollies had had their photo ops. Instead we get a tax that's filtered through yet another bureaucracy and the finance industry.

Understand I'm all for reducing pollution.

One more thing before I stop my rant. Data drives models, not the other way round. You don't alter data to fit your model.

Waldo

16th November 2009, 05:28 PM

:aro-u: 100% :whs: :2tsup:

glenn k

16th November 2009, 08:33 PM

:aro-u: 100% :whs: :2tsup:

Ihave no idea if CO2 is causing these problems but I totally agree.

damian

17th November 2009, 09:12 AM

I'm sorry for the venemous rant yesterday. I get a bit out of control on this and similar issues. I'm politically middle of the road and rail against extremists on either side.

The reason I get so cranky is this is a social justice issue for me. As I mentioned I am constantly bewildered at how readily people will put being heard and getting their way ahead of the real needs of the vulnerable people in society. Some of you will remember the Hawke Keeting government in the early 80's destroying the textile industry in Australia. For the sake of economic rationalisn I saw hundreds or people, mostly women from the poorest backgrounds thrown out of thier minimum wage jobs with little hope for alternative employment. This sort of thing happens again and again, for the sake of idealogies and egos.

Self confessed cranky old man :)

johnc

17th November 2009, 09:54 AM

Using economic levers like the ETS do have some merit providing they are linked to programs that actually bring about change. You actually need to provide the direction, some solutions and a time frame and then use a lever like an ETS as a prod to get things moving. On its own an ETS may do little, and dry conditions and CO2 warnings seem to be giving sellers of water and power the opportunity to push up costs without doing much to reduce the problem.

We are possibly the worlds worst polluter per capita, producing twice as much CO2 as the Europeans, five times the Chinese and marginally more than the North Americans.

Some of that can be put down to our coal fired generators and some to poor (inefficient) house design. Our heavy industry is in decline and we are cutting back on land clearing so in some ways reductions are occuring.

We do need to protect those on low incomes, solar hot water and double glazing should probably be standard and rather than hoping it will happen the government needs to do more in building standards and retrofitting old homes. That especially means helping those on lower incomes to make changes that reduce their costs and power needs.

If we can bring down the cost of LED globes and ban appliances that consume power on standby we could probably knock a minimum of 25% off home power bills. Solar hotwater, reduction of drafts in homes, and better understanding of where heat is lost would bring further savings.

There is a lot that could be done without huge cost, but in the end someone is going to have to make the decission to bring an end to our dirtiest coal fired generators, and do more about alternatives.

Instead we bring on line a desal plant that uses massive amounts of power from generators that use massive amounts of water to produce that power. Wouldn't capturing urban runoff to feed our parks, and gardens along with rainwater tanks have been worth considering. We would use more of what we currently waste and reduce CO2 emmissions at the same time.

We remain locked into the silliness of pretending we need not do anything, but why should the rest of the world bother when the dirtiest users of CO2 choose to do so little. If a supposedly well off country with one of the worlds most solid economies can sit on its hands where is the obligation on anyone else to get moving.

rrobor

17th November 2009, 12:44 PM

Im with Tea lady all the way, if she is ever my way she is welcome to drop in for a cuppa and,if given warning, Ill make a batch of scones. This issue dragged on in the other forum, it is a two sided fight and has turned into something other than climate. My advice to all is drop it, its never solved as it has politics jammed in the mix. Anyway Australia has no choice, we can be in, and fight on the inside, or out and be dictated to. In the scheme of things, Australia lives by selling to other countries, if we start giving them the rude finger they aint gonna buy from us.

Ashore

17th November 2009, 02:29 PM

And to see rrobor reasons look here
Emission Trading - Renovate Forums (http://www.renovateforum.com/f187/emission-trading-77931/)
and read the 475 posts that got nowere , people have mindset on this new tax and no one will change their views
or if you disagree with the ETS you can sign the petition from hugie's first post but lets not go another 475 posts of bias

rrobor

17th November 2009, 04:58 PM

.RC.

17th November 2009, 10:11 PM

Most of the world has moved on from these purile anti global warming arguements.

Yes because their political/business masters told them to.. If everyone jumps over a cliff do we do it as well???

Many years ago everyone thought the world was flat... Even today billions of people believe in an entity where there is absolutely no proof of it's existence other then handed down legend..

People for the most part are not rational nor logical and generally believe whatever they are told to believe..

Well said and the heart of the matter. I remember some interviews with Barnaby Joyce in the early days where he calmly stated that he would at the maximum see two terms in office as the effect of Canberra was corrupting and he didnt want to end up just another piece of apparatchik. Well guess whats happened.

He hasn't done two terms yet has he???

Senate terms are eight years, not four..That is why only half the senate gets voted out/in every federal election...

.RC.

17th November 2009, 10:17 PM

We are possibly the worlds worst polluter per capita, producing twice as much CO2 as the Europeans, five times the Chinese and marginally more than the North Americans.

Statistics prove nothing, and you have manipulated them to make a point...

Why didn't you say we produce something like 3% of the worlds CO2??

Why didn't you say we are the fifth or sixth largest country with an extremely small population??

How much of the worlds food do we produce??

How much of the worlds coal do we produce??

How much of the worlds iron ore do we produce??

:no:

johnc

17th November 2009, 10:39 PM

Statistics prove nothing, and you have manipulated them to make a point...

Why didn't you say we produce something like 3% of the worlds CO2??

Why didn't you say we are the fifth or sixth largest country with an extremely small population??

How much of the worlds food do we produce??

How much of the worlds coal do we produce??

How much of the worlds iron ore do we produce??

:no:

Because the first two are nonsense (its about 1.4 to 1.5% if you believe the Libs and Nats, and we make up something like .3% of the worlds population), and the last three may well make interesting statistics if you provided some figures but do not bear directly on the question. All of mans endevours have some bearing on resource use, and various emissions, but whats your point. We don't as far as I know include exported coal or iron in our CO2 calculations just the stuff we use. What bearing does food have in the calculations?. Quite frankly if thats about all you can manage why bother posting inuendo without rational support.

I have noted some earlier posts on the fact that this has been done to death in the renovation forum, and see little point in adding fuel beyond this post. It is a shame this topic can't be a discussion on what is and is not drawn in and what various proposals will do rather than people getting all fired up and posting meritless accusations.

Sebastiaan56

18th November 2009, 08:25 AM

While your at it take a good long look at the enviroment movement. They are a mix of thieves and self gratifying morons. Mentalists, not enviromentalists. The first type are out to line thier pockets at anyone's expense that they can manage to con, the latter sit around sipping their late's in their inner city slums complaining about what everyone else is doing, and offering no sensible solutions.

Oh dear, this is why this debate never goes anywhere (Dont take it personally Damian, I read your apology but want to make another point). There is a undercurrent of violent agreement about the need to reduce resource wastage and therefore cost. What is skewing perceptions is the very successful wedge politics being waged to neutralise the need for calm rational action. It is divide and conquer. The longer we argue about caracatures of various positions in this debate (left / right, green / industrialist etc) the less real action needs to be taken and the better chance of us re-electing the same stooges (no matter what party they claim to represent) who got us into this mess in the first place. Their lackies are the media who spew that same wedge vitriol to ensure their personal ratings dont slip. The best way to eff their whole game is to actually talk to each other and see that we have the same agendas. I think the way the debate is conducted is more damaging than the climate change itself.

As a business owner and employer I know that there will be more to pay for years of mismanagement by governments of all flavours, and it will pass through the whole economy. And my staff want more money, and my kid needs tutoring if he is going to get through school, the car is 5 years old and is starting to need work. Ive got the effin chinese breathing down my back undercutting me on jobs that arent even worth a grand. If we are going to get rid of anything lets get rid of the WTO and all of the free trade areas and agreements, oops my rant...

The best environmental work in Aus at the moment (IMO) is coming from the Uni of NSW. Leaders in Cogeneration, Solar panel technologies, etc. Their website is worth looking at to see what solutions are being proposed. See also the World business council for sustainable development World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) (http://www.wbcsd.org/templates/TemplateWBCSD5/layout.asp?MenuID=1) check out who is in it and what they are trying to do.

Finally, Australia's ETS has nothing to do with the Copenhagen Conference. The conference is an attempt to get a world wide agreement to limit the amount of carbon going into the air. Any decision taken must be implemented by the governments of the countries of the world. An ETS is only one way of doing this and fits with the current free market philosophy that the "L" parties subscribe to. There are lots of other ways of incentivising economies to reduce carbon consumption. The "L"'s are too lazy/scared to publicly canvas the rest. I thought Turnball's suggestion of a straight carbon tax was one of the better ones but it only got a very limited airing. The government has been trying to push the legislation through before Copenhagen to give it some negotiating leverage as Australia is such a small player. But it has never had the numbers in the Senate, it aint gonna happen.

I would make a terrible pollie, Id tell the lot to eff of and then go down to the shed and ruin some nice timber.

damian

18th November 2009, 09:27 AM

Oh dear, this is why this debate never goes anywhere (Dont take it personally Damian,

If we are going to get rid of anything lets get rid of the WTO and all of the free trade areas and agreements, oops my rant...

I won't take it personally :) And I agree with most of what you just posted. I'll have another go at making myself clear, as I realise I don't always communicate well what I have tried to say.

If you bother to study history we have always since the industrial revolution and possibly before reached a point where the community has jacked up and forced polluters to back off. It happened in Victorian Britain, it happened in the 70's, it's happened all along. The notion put by the rabid mentalists that "it's time to start doing something about the enviroment" is pure absurdity. If you pull them up they admit to previous enviromental controls (and sometimes claim credit for them) but they continue to try and perpetuate the misinformation. Obviously the socialists don't have a monopoly on propoganda and misinformation but over the last 30 years they have become uncommonly prolific and expert at it. I saw a story on the news the other day about 2 stroke outboards and the proposal to ban their sale in queensland. Every piece of information in the story was incorrect. Every single piece.

I made a point of mentioning some of things being done or that could be done above. It would be really nice to see more solutions put forward and debated rather than the tow the line stance by our government and media. I suppose if you give people choices they might start to doubt your rhetoric or, heaven forbid, think for themselves. This is the essence of my objection to the global warming propoganda. It's based on fear and obedience. They don't want solutions, they don't care who they hurt, they just want obedience and aceptance.

This is not and never has been a scientific debate. The mentalists bandy about the word to give themselves credibility, and a minority of amoral PhD's will say and do anything for a research grant. This has always been a political debate between an ideaolegy that wants to destroy western civilisation and one that wants to exploit nature until it's obliterated. In the middle are the rational beings looking for a workable compromise, but we get no profile in the media because concensus and agreement make poorer ratings than a good punchup. Barnaby Joyce has learned this and flowered up his speach to get exposure. He is neither fruitcake nor fool, he is representing his constituents as best he can.

In a perfect world we would assess the cost benifit of the options to hand and the likelyhood of sucess of investing in emerging technologies and research, then we would provide information and options to the population to take up as they see fit. That approach would result in real pollution reductions, signifigant and measureable. That ain't no where near what's happening. Instead a few amoral people will make tones of money and the vulnerable and voiceless will get screwed again.

I suppose it's confusing that I refer to the mentalists as the collective of thieves and thick pseudo-socialist/enviromentalists who are so willing to embrace the dogma. It's the people and the process that makes me so angry, not the essential sentiment that looking after our enviroment is a good idea, which in my opinion should be self evident. You need to always remember that the people who get on TV are just another type of politician, always remember that through every word they utter.

As for the world bank/WTO and such you really should watch the "yes men", a movie made some years back by a bunch of activists. Absolutely hysterical, and mostly because as Homer Simpson once famously said "because it's true"...

And xkcd rocks. I remember that frame and laughed long when it was first published. :D

.RC.

18th November 2009, 12:29 PM

All of mans endevours have some bearing on resource use, and various emissions, but whats your point. We don't as far as I know include exported coal or iron in our CO2 calculations just the stuff we use.

But it emits a shed load of CO2 with their mining... This is why it is totally unfair to say we are the biggest emitters, blah blah blah...

If we stopped all mining and processing and agriculture our emissions would plummet.. You would also be dead as you have starved to death...

If everyone wants to reduce emissions, why is it today will see extreme amounts of electricity use??? Why do people need to turn the aircon and emit huge amounts of CO2 rather then toughing out the heat..

kiwigeo

18th November 2009, 12:48 PM

Why even get slightly concerned about global warming.....were all going to choke on our waste long before global warming gets us.

Even if you dont believe in human influenced climate change do something for the planet and adopt a less wasteful lifestyle.

Sebastiaan56

18th November 2009, 03:50 PM

He hasn't done two terms yet has he???

Senate terms are eight years, not four..That is why only half the senate gets voted out/in every federal election...

I stand corrected, Barnaby Joyce's term started 01.07.05 it expires 30.06.11

Gingermick

18th November 2009, 05:15 PM

Why even get slightly concerned about global warming.....were all going to choke on our waste long before global warming gets us.
.

I think more than that, our government will have workshopped, seminared and consulted about AGW until we are destitute. Then they'll try and sell off the national parks, the police service, courts.....

China

18th November 2009, 10:21 PM

Regardleess of wether you believe in global warming or not do your reaserch and you will find that "Copenhagen" has very little to do with global warming or ETS agreements

wolften

19th November 2009, 08:51 AM

Hundreds gathered recently to protest global warming.

http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/517/globalmeet.jpg

damian

19th November 2009, 11:00 AM

The Hubbert Peak Theory of Rock, or, Why We’re All Out of Good Songs | Overthinking It (http://www.overthinkingit.com/2008/09/23/the-hubbert-peak-theory-of-rock-or-why-were-all-out-of-good-songs/)

While we're posting chuckles.

Note this graph has a much better correlation than most supporting human driven climate change...(couldn't resist a jab :D )

hughie

19th November 2009, 11:33 AM

This much I do know, that many have made much out of this and when confronted with a different view, will often ridiculed that alternate view to strengthen their own point of view.

I note also that it was not so long ago, the 70's in fact, we were supposedly heading into a Ice Age.

One does wonder whats next? If the sky is not falling?Perhaps we can be convinced the earth is rising :o

.RC.

19th November 2009, 04:23 PM

It is amusing that it is mainly middle class wanting an ETS, but it is middle class that is going to pay for it all...

Remember all the poor people will be compensated by the government for any extra costs the ETS puts on them..

If you own a restaurant or are in tourism, that will be the first sector hit as middle class Australia have to tighten their belts to pay for the "Extra Tax Scheme"

.RC.

19th November 2009, 04:28 PM

Regardleess of wether you believe in global warming or not do your reaserch and you will find that "Copenhagen" has very little to do with global warming or ETS agreements

Copenhagen is about the redistribution of wealth from "rich" to poor.. The ETS will accelerate this as virtually all manufacturing is sent off shore to countries that will be "allowed" to increase their emissions.. These countries will then hold all the cards and they will be able to blackmail us if we wish to keep up our very high standard of living...

rrobor

19th November 2009, 05:06 PM

Yep it seems this will go the same way as the renovative forum, politics, scare tactics and BS.
All running around like the little red hen saying the sky is going to fall in. Its all woof, no teeth. Who built Australia? It was rag bags from Europe. They did it because the could think and work and use their head.
This thing, whether you agree with it or not, will happen. Running around screaming the sky is falling is the defeatist view. Look for way you can suceed. As usual those that do will, those that want to hang on to the hand loom and cry, wont.

.RC.

19th November 2009, 07:34 PM

This thing, whether you agree with it or not, will happen. Running around screaming the sky is falling is the defeatist view. Look for way you can suceed. As usual those that do will, those that want to hang on to the hand loom and cry, wont.

LOL isn't saying it will happen regardless a defeatist attitude...

rrobor

19th November 2009, 08:47 PM

The vast majority of world governments believe that global warming is a fact. You can take that, that its defeatist, or you can take it as banging your head against a brick wall. Whatever way you wish to look at it you or I aint going to change that. So are you going to fight against the tide or are you going to be smart , and invent something that needs the tide. Playing politics with this one, in the end will prove to not be a smart move. Next election quote me on that.

johnc

19th November 2009, 08:55 PM

Copenhagen is about the redistribution of wealth from "rich" to poor.. The ETS will accelerate this as virtually all manufacturing is sent off shore to countries that will be "allowed" to increase their emissions.. These countries will then hold all the cards and they will be able to blackmail us if we wish to keep up our very high standard of living...

Give me a break, the ETS will have an impact like a tax (which it is) it may dampen manufacturing in some areas but for those with new ideas it will open opportunities. It will also direct those taxes to others in many ways it is not much different to other aspects of the system we live in. At this stage it is not through the upper house and it is still to early to see what its final design will be. To talk in absolutes as you do, with this or that being the only outcome indicates you have a closed mind incapable of seeing that a coin has more than one side. It also will not be set in stone, like everything else politicians do, it will change over time if it gets in at all. I'm open on the ETS I would like to see a lot more than what I have read before I form an opinion as there is insufficient detail to do so. I don't believe its the answer at this stage, but I don't believe its a destroyer either. In Europe some of the complaints are that it pushed up power prices with windfall gains to the generators.

The effect on business of extreme weather (as we have experienced in the last decade of drought & flood) is probably greater than an ETS can deliver, interference in free trade with subsidies, price gouging and dumping of products is also greater than many realise.

Copenhagen will be a talkfest, its not much different to many others on trade, climate and border protection. Regardless of what side people sit on sensationalism of these meetings achieves nothing more than highlighting the bigotry of the person delivering it.

rrobor

19th November 2009, 09:32 PM

.RC.

19th November 2009, 09:39 PM

Next election quote me on that.

Why??? Labor will win the next election easily... The opposition are a mob of fools led by by an unelectable leader.. Labor is even worse..

rrobor

19th November 2009, 10:01 PM

You really are a happy chappy. Nothing but complaints. Everybody is an idiot. If thats what you believe, get off your beam and do something. This is a democratic country it is up to us all to keep it that way. If you are in the minorrity accept that and make the best of it. But you sure aint doing much flinging your hands in the air and crying woe with me.

kiwigeo

20th November 2009, 03:19 AM

kiwigeo

20th November 2009, 03:39 AM

I note also that it was not so long ago, the 70's in fact, we were supposedly heading into a Ice Age.

One does wonder whats next? If the sky is not falling?Perhaps we can be convinced the earth is rising :o

The impending ice age that was talked about in the 70's was based on a slight downward trend in temps between 1945 and the early 70's and although the overall consensus amongst the scientific community at the time was that an impending ice age was _not_ occuring the press chose to ignore the scientific understanding of ice age cycles and presented the impending ice age as fact.... thus another urban myth was created.

Sebastiaan56

20th November 2009, 06:42 AM

Sure ETS will cause major issues, we all know that. But what you going to do about it. If you have any sense you know, right or wrong its not going to go away. So what you gonna do. Sit in the corner and moan. Or see how you can suceed with that in place. That is the challenge of this age. Can you suceed, or are you going to continue to whine and fail.

I reckon there are a hundred thousand business opportunities waiting right now. A few need just a bit of support (Nathan Reece's new feed in tariff rules for example) but there are a lot that will be like dogs balls in hindsight. Mini solar collection using salt water to retain the heat must be an opportunity, particularly in our current heat wave.

.RC.

20th November 2009, 09:05 AM

Everybody is an idiot.

No most people are not idiots, they just lack in independent thought and believe what they are told, the term sheeple is based on quite a bit of truth...

There are plenty of examples to support my case..

Terrorists
Pedophiles

We have lost huge amounts of freedom over the hysteria of those two groups alone..Bring in the environmental

Our extremely high standard of living has given people closed minds and it seems to have infiltrated every generation alive. People these days have no grasp of reality and common sense..Everything is always someone else's fault.. A classic example is the current hot weather and the huge amount of electricity that was consumed by air con units...People say they are concerned by CO2 emissions but they still turned on the air cons...Another example is the last election, people voted against workchoices yet they go and buy goods from china built by exploited workers on $1 a day wages.

They say they want strict environmental controls yet again buy goods from china where the toxic chemicals used are pumped straight into the water..

They say they don't want nuclear power yet a coal fired power station spews out more radioactive material then a modern nuclear one ever will..

The hypocrisy and stupidity of sheeple is amazing all bought about by closed minds and hysteria..

kiwigeo

20th November 2009, 09:49 AM

No most people are not idiots, they just lack in independent thought and believe what they are told, the term sheeple is based on quite a bit of truth...

..

I think with something like climate change the problem is more laypeople trying to understand what is actually a very complex subject..... Im a Geologist with a university degree and even I dont fully understand the complexities of the worlds climate systems. Add to that a general inability on the part of most scientists to explain science in clear and understandable language and a general distrust of scientists amongst many of people and its not surprising that people don't accept global warming.

My current feelings on climate change and global warming.....the changes we are seeing are a combinatuon of natural climate fluctuation but with perhaps some degree of human influence superimposed on same. I have the ICCP reports sitting on my desk at home but have yet to find the time to sit down and read them. When I have I will re-think my take on the whole issue.

Regardless of my beliefs on climate change and global warming one thing we do need to start doing is to change our wasteful western lifestyle.

.RC.

20th November 2009, 10:43 AM

Regardless of my beliefs on climate change and global warming one thing we do need to start doing is to change our wasteful western lifestyle.

I agree with that, but the Extra Tax Scheme will not do that... Consumerism is an addiction and we are totally addicted..

Years ago the consumer lived in amodest three bedroom home...Today they live in a McMansion with full ensuite, a holiday every year and they eat out at least once a week..

damian

20th November 2009, 11:19 AM

I don't quite understand your last comment....Hubbert Peak Oil Theory ( prefer to call it fact) has nothing to do with human driven climate change.

You misread my comment. I was referring to the _correlation_ between the song dates and the oil production/discovery curves. They follow one another better than most of the data quoted to support human driven climate change. I wasn't suggesting the graph was one supporting climate change, and to be clear it was posted as a joke to follow up the cute little snowmen :)

To put it another way, if your able to get hold of the raw data, complete and unadulterated, and graph it up without any "massaging" or cherry picking the correlations that the CLE's try to use are poor at best and more often than not absent.

Of course the anti climate change lobby are guilty of the same thing, they often justify it as fighting fire with fire.

Having a geology degree isn't even a beginning to understanding atmospheric physics. Not knocking your degree, I've got quite a few friends who are geologists, but I've made a decent study of climate physics over the last 15 years or so, and meteorology (I'm a bit of an Eric Oldthwait I'm afraid, shovels and precipitation), and you need to do a lot of reading and listening even from a strong physics background. Then if your going to advance to "climateology" you need to grasp oceanography, palentology and history pretty darn well.

With regards the "crankiness" factor in this, as has been pointed out this is a democracy and the ETS hasn't passed yet, thus IMO we have every right to kick and scream to put it off or better yet put it down.

I suppose those of you welcoming the ets with open arms and professing the opportunities it presents also thought the gst was a good idea, afterall the government told us how great it was going to be. While we're all used to that increased level of financial pain now I am sure you have all conveniently forgotten how many small businesses it shut down. I knew quite a few people who had been happily trading for decades who shut shop when that gem was unleashed on us. Good luck making money out of the ets, I rather suspect the only people to profit will be the parasites in the finance industry and big organisations who have contributed to political party coffers, and to pollies in "other" ways....

rrobor

20th November 2009, 01:30 PM

Climate change, real or imaginay, ia a foct of life. You can make all sorts of noises. You can do what the yokels are doing in the yokel party and destroy a viable opposition. It will make no difference.
You may post to page 32 as happened in the renovative forum with your complaints and ideas, you are wasting your time. This subject has fixed ideas on both sides, they dont change.
The Rudd government got in and wiped the Howard government with the platform they are doing now. Like it or not, that is the majority view. That view remains, as such moaning that the majority got it wrong is a waste of time, and pointless.

jimbur

20th November 2009, 01:58 PM

Climate change, real or imaginay, ia a foct of life. You can make all sorts of noises. You can do what the yokels are doing in the yokel party and destroy a viable opposition. It will make no difference.

Destroying a viable opposition is the most dangerous action of all. Let any party have a rubber stamp in parliament and we're in deep trouble.
Jim

kiwigeo

20th November 2009, 08:31 PM

Having a geology degree isn't even a beginning to understanding atmospheric physics. Not knocking your degree, I've got quite a few friends who are geologists, but I've made a decent study of climate physics over the last 15 years or so, and meteorology (I'm a bit of an Eric Oldthwait I'm afraid, shovels and precipitation), and you need to do a lot of reading and listening even from a strong physics background. Then if your going to advance to "climateology" you need to grasp oceanography, palentology and history pretty darn well.

..

Actually having a degree in Geology with more exposure than most to Quaternary Geology (I trained in the South Island of NZ and worked with NZ Geological Survey for a bit) doesnt make me an expert in atmospheric physics but it gives me a bit more insight than the average layman into the history of climatic fluctuations and the basic theory/causes behind it. A large part of my time with the Geological Survey was spent staring at loess sections, paleosols, moraines glacial outwash terraces and other features that tell a story of multiple glacials and interglacial through out NZ's Quaternary history....Being a Geologist also means finding it easier to comprehend the importance of the temporal aspects of climate change (= ability to think in terms of long periods of time that extend beyond the average life span of a human).

Cheers Martin

kiwigeo

20th November 2009, 08:42 PM

I agree with that, but the Extra Tax Scheme will not do that... Consumerism is an addiction and we are totally addicted..

Years ago the consumer lived in amodest three bedroom home...Today they live in a McMansion with full ensuite, a holiday every year and they eat out at least once a week..

Are you saying the addiction cant be broken? If so then thats a defeatist attitude. I dont see how eating out once a week and taking a holiday once a year having anything to do with living wastefully. Families have been taking annual holidays since year dot and eating out once a week wouldnt use much more energy and resources per capita than staying at home and cooking a meal. Im talking about things like not buying the biscuits wrapped in three layers of plastic, cutting down on landfill by composting organic waste and recycling, turning off appliances at the wall when theyre not being used, driving a sensibly sized car, walking down to the shops instead of taking the 2 minute drive, not replacing your fridge and TV simply because its not as big your neighbours, sweeping the leaves off your tiny back courtyard with a broom instead of firing up a leaf blower etc.

.RC.

21st November 2009, 12:57 PM

johnc

21st November 2009, 06:34 PM

And the reason for posting the link is ? it doesn't add anything, its a bit of internet traffic about a hacked terminal, and the data may not be genuine. Even if some of the emails are they could well simply be cherry picked in a a way that paints a picture different to the intent of the writer. It will not sway the issue one way or the other unless you are a conspiracy theorist in which case we could conclude rational arguement is not required and conclusions can be reached that bear no relationship to the facts.

.RC.

21st November 2009, 07:12 PM

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see..

I often thought some global warming believers treat the subject like a religion....Now I believe it...

Gingermick

21st November 2009, 07:50 PM

conclusions can be reached that bear no relationship to the facts.

wasn't that the point of the link:D

rrobor

21st November 2009, 08:10 PM

johnc is correct, regardles of which side you are on you can find proof for your arguement. You can argue the floods, the worst recorded ever in England, and the hottest November day ever recorded in Victoria, are proof or coincidence, dependant on what you want to believe.
So like in the other forum, this will drag on, reaching no conclusion, till everybody has had enough. Even then there will be those who, for suspected political reasons, will try to poke more life into it by means of a sharp stick.

johnc

21st November 2009, 08:17 PM

I think it proves their security is pretty lax, and if there is some manipulating of data that can be proved it will seriously damage some reputations. However manipulation of data, or the selective use of it is pretty common to the extreme elements of both sides, and it would be a good sign to see that change.

there is an article in Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists | Environment | guardian.co.uk (http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/20/climate-sceptics-hackers-leaked-emails)

which is a bit more balanced, however about the only thing that can be said at this stage is that it will be interesting to watch this unfold.

As extreme weather events are given as one of the effects of Climate change and that we are currently seeing both this and severe floods in Cumbria that surpass their 100 year scenarios I would expect any leverage UK skeptics gain will be netted off by those who believe the floods are yet another extreme event caused by a changing climate.

kiwigeo

21st November 2009, 11:14 PM

Hadley CRU hacked with release of hundreds of docs and emails (http://www.examiner.com/x-28973-Essex-County-Conservative-Examiner~y2009m11d19-Hadley-CRU-hacked-with-release-of-hundreds-of-docs-and-emails)

Interesting stuff....but Im dubious. Here's a quote from the article:

"And, you get to see somebody with the name of phil jones say that he would rather destroy the CRU data than release it to McIntyre. And lots lots more. including how to obstruct or evade FOIA requests. and guess who funded the collection of cores at Yamal.. and transferred money into a personal account in Russia[.] And you get to see what they really say behind the curtain.. you get to see how they “shape” the news, how they struggled between telling the truth and making policy makers happy. [Y]ou get to see what they say about Idso and pat micheals, you get to read how they want to take us out into a dark alley, it’s stunning all very stunning. You get to watch somebody named phil jones say that John daly’s death is good news.. or words to that effect. I don’t know that its real.. But the CRU code looks real"

Punctuation and capitalisation makes it read like an Eastern Europe sourced spam mail.

rrobor

21st November 2009, 11:30 PM

Anybody that wants to believe material stolen basically to reset for profit must be pretty desperate. Russia has some of the worst gangsters in the world, relying on stolen documents coming out of there as having any credability is almost beyond belief.

.RC.

22nd November 2009, 01:35 PM

relying on stolen documents coming out of there as having any credability is almost beyond belief.

[/URL]Hadley Climatic Research Centre has confirmed they had emails stolen..

No one knows where the original hacker is based, they would have been hosted in Russia for the very reason of anonymity..

[url]http://news.google.com.au/news/more?um=1&cf=all&ned=au&cf=all&ncl=dHm6f_sLiRoQFdMqK3IYapXa_Wh7M (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/)

jimbur

22nd November 2009, 02:00 PM

Hadley Climatic Research Centre has confirmed they had emails stolen..

No one knows where the original hacker is based, they would have been hosted in Russia for the very reason of anonymity..

In the trenches on climate change, ho... - Google News (http://news.google.com.au/news/more?um=1&cf=all&ned=au&cf=all&ncl=dHm6f_sLiRoQFdMqK3IYapXa_Wh7M)

Perhaps it's just me but I'm getting a little confused with this. There doesn't appear to be a Hadley Climatic Research Centre at the University of East Anglia.
Puzzled,
Jim

jimbur

22nd November 2009, 02:03 PM

A bit less puzzled now. It seems the early reports got it wrong.
Jim

.RC.

22nd November 2009, 02:03 PM

Climatic Research Unit (http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/)

And if they are so sure of their info why are they refusing FOI requests???

http://camirror.wordpress.com/2009/11/21/test/

rrobor

22nd November 2009, 05:01 PM

Mike B

22nd November 2009, 06:16 PM

Sceptic or supporter there are a number of things that give me concern with the current situation:

Climate change science has become a new religion. The speed with which any that claim an alternate view is damned is terrible. The language is that of McCarthyism. You are either one of us or in the extreme fringe.

The abuse of the "science" is also ugly. Supporters claim the science is now set in stone, that models have proven the future of climate change. Yet those scientists that choose to publish alternate findings are immediately accused of bias. Often with the accusers sourcing their own evidence from other sites that then base their evidence on yet more sites. Sometimes finding the actual source of the information is like chasing the cats tail.
People are so desperate for their new found cause to be cut-and-dried. They need the villains in black and the good guys in white. Nothing in science (especially those involving predictive models) is as simple as that. Yes, there is now historic data that can show warming/change but there is also data that shows the opposite. The problem is that now dissenting data is hardly afforded proper peer review so it’s true value is difficult to assess. That is terrible science. I’m the first to admit I can’t understand all the papers I’ve been reading lately, that’s what I need the scientists for. The problem is that I’m no longer confident the scientific community is actually engaging the thorough peer review anymore. The dissenting science I see is damned so quickly I can rarely find any useful information on actually why it was or wasn’t discredited – such is the volume of the screams of “Heretic!”.

Finally outside of the climate change there is the ETS and Copenhagen. At best (and when has something proposed by any government achieved 100% of its goals) Australia’s 5% reduction target would get swallowed up twice a year by Chinas growth alone. To those that say China is looking at renewable energy, China is looking for ANY energy. They are headed for 80 years of economic growth that will require an astounding amount of energy. Most of this will be nuclear if we’re lucky and coal if we are not. The fact that nuclear energy has low carbon emission is just a coincidence for China (and India) it’s the power they want.<o></o>

So we are left with an ETS. Surely it’s easy to see the driver for this is the amount of money that can be made by monetising the carbon. This ETS now excludes farmers, subsidises industry and leaves the consumer with no knowledge of the level of its financial impact and the government with little control over the price of carbon (that tax we will all be paying). The Copenhagen treaty as it stands means a country gives up its rights with regards to the price of carbon and the amount it owes the lesser polluting nations to an unelected body. The third world countries will sign the treaty as they stand to make hundreds of billions of dollars. Rudd will sign it because he has a large ego and an addiction to destiny. The question is who else will follow.

Sorry for the rant but this is something that gives me great concern. Leaving my kids with a possible environmental burden slightly improved for a definite economic burden with no relief in sight is a bad bad thing.<o></o><o>
</o>

.RC.

22nd November 2009, 06:31 PM

So we are left with an ETS. <o>
</o>

Which is stupid as an ETS is anti-renewable energy..

To build renewable energy systems first requires "dirty" energy..

To build a dam requires lots of oil....To build a nuclear power plant requires lots and lots of oil and coal for the material and labour..

An ETS will make all these things much much more expensive to build so we don't build as many...The ETS is like cutting off your perfectly good arm and then trying to build something..

If any country is allowed to increase emissions then the stuff will simply be built over there..Can we even trust other countries to correctly audit their emissions, especially if most of their energy requirements are internally generated... For example, the mythical country of Romonon tells us they used 100 million barrels of oil in a year which they sourced from their own oil wells, when in fact they used 1 billion barrels...

Cruzi

22nd November 2009, 06:35 PM

I don't believe in this fire, it can't hurt me.

http://www.cruzis-coins.com/tmp/fir001.jpg

Taken 10 mins ago as the rainforest burns at our doorstep, at least one house has gone up in smoke ........

jimbur

22nd November 2009, 06:36 PM

Doing research you can not disclose intermediate results as they prove nothing. The best way to explain this is to explain random chance. This is shown by dropping grain from a height. The first few grains bounce in any direction and there is no method of reasoning. But the more grain that falls, the more a pattern develops and the more accurate will the conclusion be. If you put out simple figures for one year, you may find the earth cooled that year. That means absolutely nothing, nor would one year of increase. Its the slow pattern thats important not the ravings of those with causes.

I agree. Look at the so called scientifically based stories that hit the press. Some research might point at evidence of the cause of a particular cancer. The press changes it to a cancer cure being imminent. Anyone remember interferon? It was going to be the cure for everything including the common cold.
I'm still sneezing every year :D
Cheers
Jim

jimbur

22nd November 2009, 06:39 PM

I don't believe in this fire, it can't hurt me.

Have faith Cruzi :D. Seriously though, keep safe.
Jim

weisyboy

22nd November 2009, 06:49 PM

sure i belive in global warming.

do i belive people have anything to do with it. NO

everything goes in cycles it will heat up a little then it will cool down a little.

how mutch has teh globe warmed really?

has someone done the research and got all teh temps for every day everyware in the world for teh last 200 years and actualy worked it out?

if so lets see teh results.
what about teh 200 years before that? how do we knoe things hadent been colling down before.

after all tehre have been ice ages before.

watching teh news over teh weekend and all that u see is bushfires. they are just teh inn thing at teh moment. bushfires have been happening forever. the reason they are so bad now is because teh government has spent to long listening to greenies. and people are idiots no matter how bad teh bushfire is our house wont burn because we know what to do and dont have trees and shrubs growing right up to out front door.

Gingermick

22nd November 2009, 07:26 PM

I absolutely agree with you there carl.
MikeB, well said.:2tsup:

kiwigeo

23rd November 2009, 01:26 AM

Alot of discussion going on in here with people quoting from websites run by anti global warming lobby. Also alot of shooting down of the ICPP and its activities. I wonder how many in here have actually been to the IPCC website and downloaded and read any of their reports? Theyre not too heavy reading for anyone who didnt flunk high school science.

IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://www.ipcc.ch/)

Mike B

23rd November 2009, 02:10 AM

Yep, I've read all the assessment reports. They were what led me to seeking out alternate points of view on the matter. In terms of modelling vs reality, I think there is more room-to-move in the IPSS's likely and very likely scenarios than many would care to admit.
In the context of this discussion I am frankly more concerned about the efficacy of the government's proposed solutions to those scenarios that the IPCC modelling suggests.

Australia's ETS is hobbled and vague and the final version is still unknown (assuming the Coalition do come to the party) only a few weeks away from Copenhagen.

Copenhagen is going to be all about the money, how can it not be? This is the power that exists between nations. Will these diplomats be thinking about the environment once the keynote speakers are done and the real deals begin behind closed doors?

My scepticism in not so much about climate change as the abilities and motivations of those involved in developing the solutions (treaties or globalised cap and trade of carbon) that we will have to deal with for decades to come.