I'm sick of hearing GLOBAL WARMING AGGHHH [Archive]

Fox3

8th June 2007, 05:41 AM

I don't know about any of you guys, but I am sick to death of hearing about how doomed we are from global warming.

I think we are going to be forced to pay a huge price for a token effort to stop the unstoppable.

I think there are so many lies and half truths or if's, but's and maybe's taken as gospel and fueled by scaremongering that our pollies have no choice but to waste billions on a futile effort.

Just my bitch.

Not just yours :D.

Some day these clowns are going to figure out that the sun does not have a constant fixed output. Either that or all the SUVs, fossil fuel power plants, evil capitalist and all that do actually exist on more than just one planet in this solar system :D.

I've been watching this train wreck for some time and researching it on my own (the net is a wonderful thing) and the quoted research that supposedly supports this is so full of bad science it is utterly pathetic if not criminal and until very recently that has gotten no recognition *at all*.

It *seems* that the media has been finally forced to listen to real climate scientist rather than the clueless political scare mongers (without a clue but with an obvious agenda) and the "climate scientists" who's jobs depend on backing up their political masters (in other words all the ones making money off this scam). There might possibly be hope for rational and real scientific thought to prevail now, dunno.

How much are the (agenda driven) press, the scare mongers, feel good politicians and scammers going to cost us before they get stopped, not just with bad information on the global warming(TM) issue alone?

Sometimes I really think the real purpose of what the press and the politicians in total are now trying to do is to destroy not only civilization but mankind as well.

It certainly looks to me like insanity is contagious.

Sigh...

Gingermick

8th June 2007, 08:22 AM

it certainly looks to me like insanity is contagious..

Squwabble, flitapoo

johnc

8th June 2007, 08:41 AM

The only reason we are hearing so much about it is because our pollies have it in the can't be bothered or to hard basket. The science is very strong and getting stronger all the time so I can't agree with fox3 in fact the focus is now more the extent of damage and the nay sayers have been pretty much sidelined in their futile and pathetic attempts of self denial. There is much that can be done that will help the economy by driving greater efficiencies in power use which specifically includes the amount of power we pour through our homes.There will also be some costs, but each time technology has given us more efficient means of production it has resulted in lower costs. Whats wrong about getting serious about sustainable energy, coal and oil are last centurys fuel, if we can produce power indefinately from renewable sources with out digging massive holes in the ground or draining every bit of oil we find surely that gives our childrens children the opportunity to live as comfortably as we have, with out the risk or one day running out of energy.

The debate should have already moved on to what we can do, and how to go about doing it. It is appalling that our own government rather than getting us into the forefront of ideas and creating economic opportunities for the country have decided to play ostrich and hope it just all goes away. Just my two bobs worth for the other side.

John.

bfx

8th June 2007, 08:49 AM

I guess these evil conspirators invented photosynthesis to support their arguments and the clearing of the forests in places like the Amazon is just part of the natural cycle.

DakotaGurl

8th June 2007, 08:57 AM

I think there are so many lies and half truths or if's, but's and maybe's taken as gospel and fueled by scaremongering that our pollies have no choice but to waste billions on a futile effort.

Just my bitch.

Sounds like you are talking about George W and the war on terror, truly p_ssing away billions of dollars and so many innocent lives. If this whole global warming thing is a farce (and I tend to doubt that), I would rather see billions of dollars invested in research and development and maybe help a world in environmental peril. If by chance the world is OK and this is just a waste of money (not), this is a chance to increase the world economy and create good jobs for all. Just my two cents.

Heather

Oh, and I have a little scientific background not paid for by outside interests... :~

Blocklayer

8th June 2007, 09:07 AM

After the total world devastation and mass carnage of Y2K, when computers took the world to the very brink of destruction,
and now the imminent certainty of global warming, with rising sea levels, drought, famine and world annihilation,
I think maybe we should prepare for the inevitable coming Ice Age.
(that is, of course, if we somehow miraculously avoid annihilation from bird flu, nuclear armageddon, comet strike or other popular dooms day scenario)

Just think, the Great Barrier Reef will become a new island. Land Grab!!!:cool:
.
.

dazzler

8th June 2007, 09:57 AM

There is no doubt that the world is warming. Its a natural cycle through the eons that has been proven through the ice records in the antarctic.

So it is happening, its just that we appear to be accelerating it by a huge factor and this wont give us time to evolve or whatever to deal with it.

This was the beauty of the story "Crude" that kicked this off again on the forums. For those who watched it I would think most would suggest there was no scaremongering, just a presentation of very basic facts of X amount of carbon in the air before the industrial age compared to what is there now and what there will be if we pump up the rest.

Sadly nothing we or our politicians do in this country will make any difference other than making some feel good, some feel angry and others confused.

The change must be global but that wont happen.:(

Though warming IMO is still not the worry, its the global deaths due to famine that may occur after the oil runs out.

And though it may be of discomfort for us to hear about it, without doubt our young children or theirs will have to deal with it. :(

Gumby

8th June 2007, 10:30 AM

I don't worry about it. We're all going to die anyway. :cool:

ptc

8th June 2007, 10:32 AM

I'm still waiting for the ice age that was all the go
when i was a teenager.

bitingmidge

8th June 2007, 10:35 AM

dazzler

8th June 2007, 10:37 AM

Well said bloodsucker :wink: :p

Gumby

8th June 2007, 11:04 AM

Survival of the fittest,

Well, there goes any hope for me. :rolleyes:

DakotaGurl

8th June 2007, 11:18 AM

If you drive a car, or use electricity, heat your house or use a computer. You are contributing.

Don't concentrate on the Amazon, how about replanting the 80% of this country that was cleared, then worry about what's happening elsewhere.

"Whoa!" they cry, what would we eat?

Exactly.

We enjoy a standard of living that 80% of the world's population can't even aspire to. It's not them that's rampantly consuming. As the crunch gets closer, who will be better equipped to evolve, the child who currently has to forage for his shelter, or the one that throws a tanti because the local video shop has run out of Violet Crumble bars?

Survival of the fittest, not the wealthiest, the smartest IT person, or the best hairdresser.

Cheers,

P
:D :D :D

Biting,

My last tank of gas was in March, I know how to ice fish(inside joke), grow my own produce and can build my own shelter. Yes I use some electricity, (want to install solar and wind) for heat and power. I love to use hand tools for woodworking, gets me closer to the materials, but I will admit that I have a very well equipped power shop. This world will change, those that put IT issues and hairstyles will fall to the wayside. Oh, I do cut my own hair very short, no stylist here.

Heather :U

Gingermick

8th June 2007, 11:19 AM

the Great Barrier Reef will become a new island.

Be a bit hard under foot.

Andy Mac

8th June 2007, 11:32 AM

As the crunch gets closer, who will be better equipped to evolve, the child who currently has to forage for his shelter, or the one that throws a tanti because the local video shop has run out of Violet Crumble bars?
Cheers,

P
:D :D :D

Cheers indeed Peter!

chrisp

8th June 2007, 11:33 AM

Well, there goes any hope for me. :rolleyes:

I don't know about that - I've heard that you are fairly flexible.:rolleyes:

Studley 2436

8th June 2007, 12:03 PM

Well the globe has been warming since 1800 when the "little ice age" finished.

All the CO2 that man has put in the atmosphere amounts to 1/10,000 or the atmosphere.

Michael Mann's "hockey stick" interpretation of climate change has been totally discredited.

There was likewise a warming in the middle ages. That's how the Vikings managed to live so well in Greenland.

The world actually cooled post WW2. This might possibly have been caused by nuclear testing throwing tons of dust and junk into the atmosphere. This cooling continued until 1979 when it appears we got back into the warming phase, which had it's origins way before the industrial age.

It is scaremongering scientists who want research money various others lobbyists (what do you think Greenpeace is?) that promote this approaching cataclysm for the sake of their own income.

Any warming taking place has nothing to do with mankind. It seems the height of arrogance to me to assume that we did it and we have the power to change it.

Studley

bitingmidge

8th June 2007, 12:12 PM

I know how to ice fish
Hey Heather,

That's going to be a useful skill when the ice caps have gone! :D :D

Cheers,

P

DakotaGurl

8th June 2007, 12:43 PM

Hey Heather,

That's going to be a useful skill when the ice caps have gone! :D :D

Cheers,

P

Biting,

Good point, but I will be able to use that tool for some other good use, maybe make a rug...:roll:

BobL

8th June 2007, 03:31 PM

A major problem discussing anything technical with 1000 half wits is that the combined sum of their knowledge only adds up to that of any individual half wit.

Cliff Rogers

8th June 2007, 03:42 PM

A major problem discussing anything technical with 1000 half wits is that the combined sum of their knowledge only adds up to that of any individual half wit.
I only half understood that.... what was the question again? :? :p

Gumby

8th June 2007, 03:46 PM

I only half understood that.... what was the question again? :? :p

he means he'd rather talk to 500 full wits than 1000 half wits.

You're on the wrong side of the room I think. :D

Cliff Rogers

8th June 2007, 03:48 PM

... rather talk to 500 full wits .....
I'll drink to that. :2tsup:

bsrlee

8th June 2007, 04:55 PM

The Australian Museum is running a series of lectures over the next 2 months (at least) with speakers from both sides - one of Al Gore's trained speakers and various professors of climatology & paleo-whatever.

I'd say that the evidence is insufficient to reach an accurate verdict at this time, but that is not an excuse for environmental rape either.

'Peak oil' will also have a fair effect on the alleged human industrial component. Just start practicing those horse handling skills:U

chrisp

8th June 2007, 05:38 PM

You can put whatever spin you like on globe warming and come up with whatever answer makes you feel comfortable.

At a conference on renewable energy a few years ago, I thought one of the most interesting talks was given by an insurance company representative. They are not interested in ideology of global warming but were just reporting the observed natural disaster rate. The rate of natural disaster in Australia has gone up significantly (I won't quote exact figures as I don't have a transcript or paper to reference) and the insurance industry was concerned about the movement of cyclone activity further south than previously recorded. This had great ramifications as buildings in some of the areas (south Qld & north NSW) aren't designed to withstand cyclones. The speaker alluded to the possibility of some of these areas becoming uninsurable.

rod@plasterbrok

8th June 2007, 05:46 PM

Groggy

8th June 2007, 06:03 PM

It seems to me the main problem comes from there being too many people. We breed like rabbits and pay no attention to what is sustainable. If we manage to halve our greenhouse emissions we will still double our population in a few years.

Australia's population just rose from 20 to 21 million. This million was faster than at any time in our history, including the post war job rush and the baby boom; it's unsustainable and is not being discussed.

So, reduce your emissions, tax them - do whatever you will - but until population is addressed and reduced we're doomed to 'self correct' by overcrowding, starvation, war for space or resources, or a new super plague. The worst result would be to survive until the resources are all gone.

dazzler

8th June 2007, 06:07 PM

I don't think the world is going to ever heat up enough to melt the ice caps. Quite the opposite. The ice caps never get above zero degrees and never will. Therefore they can't melt. Only the outer fringes will melt.

But with the extra moisture sucked into the atmosphere due to warming there will be increaced snow fall and ice on the ice caps!

Killing the doomsayers idea of sea levels rising by some crazy amount.

Unfortunately if the gulf stream stops flowing completely, as it did momentarily a couple of years ago, the warm sea currents that drop near the arctic will no longer cool and subsequently the seas will rise in temperature.

The earth came out of the last ice age as the isthmus between north and south america rose cutting off the gulf stream that between them and recirculating it up the west coast of the US.

So IF the edges of the Arctic do melt as you say, and its enough to cool the water so the gulf stream stops, like it hiccupped a few years ago, then the sea temperature will rise melting it even more. The ice also reflects some of the suns rays, so shrinking it also allows the temperature to rise again.

Gumby

8th June 2007, 06:36 PM

The Antarctic is a land mass with ice on it, if I'm not mistaken, and the Arctic is floating ice. So, if the Arctic ice melts, the seas will fall, not rise because water increases volume as it freezes and vice versa.

Now, if the Antartic melts, that could be another story. The edge of it being ice, the same applies. But the ice on the land running back into the sea, well, who knows.

Studley 2436

8th June 2007, 08:26 PM

I don't think the world is going to ever heat up enough to melt the ice caps. Quite the opposite. The ice caps never get above zero degrees and never will. Therefore they can't melt. Only the outer fringes will melt.

But with the extra moisture sucked into the atmosphere due to warming there will be increaced snow fall and ice on the ice caps!

Killing the doomsayers idea of sea levels rising by some crazy amount.
Actually you can kill that one pretty fast.

Jug of water put a stack of ice cubes in it. Mark the level. Let the ice cubes melt. Level will be the same, because water expands as it freezes.

So the level might rise a little if the world warms and glaciers etc melt though I doubt it will be much. Ice caps melting will make no difference at all.

We are talking about a centimetre or two

Studley

Grunt

8th June 2007, 08:42 PM

Any warming taking place has nothing to do with mankind. It seems the height of arrogance to me to assume that we did it and we have the power to change it.

Studley,

I think it is the arrogance of mankind to believe that we are somehow above nature and the biosphere and not part of it.

The science that mankind is the cause of climate change is overwhelming.

You should really have a read of this article at New Scientist. (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html)

bitingmidge

8th June 2007, 08:45 PM

It's OK Grunt, we're saved!!

The G7 (or is it G8) boys have announced today that they are going to reduce greenhouse emissions by 50% .... by 2050! :oo:

Cheers,

P

felixe

8th June 2007, 08:48 PM

I feel it is time to give an alternative view on this "global warming issue" therefore I have posted the following extract:

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.
http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.gif

This shows that it is mans interferance which has caused our climate change.
For the complete document, and how you can make a difference go to: http://www.venganza.org/about/open-letter/

I must thank Al for the original link, which awakened me to this "pirateless tradgedy!":o

Grunt

8th June 2007, 08:49 PM

Thanks Midge, that's a real relief. I think I'll get that Hummer now after all.

Gra

8th June 2007, 09:08 PM

global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s.

but does that include the DVD pirates in china, etc???

felixe

8th June 2007, 09:12 PM

I'm not sure, but I did see in the news that China is aiming to cut it's greenhouse emmisions and become a leader in renewable energy, so maybe it all evens out.:wink:

Studley 2436

8th June 2007, 09:15 PM

Studley,

I think it is the arrogance of mankind to believe that we are somehow above nature and the biosphere and not part of it.

The science that mankind is the cause of climate change is overwhelming.

You should really have a read of this article at New Scientist. (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462-climate-change-a-guide-for-the-perplexed.html)

*VBG* sorry Grunt there isn't actually any evidence at all. Just that the world is warming but as I said this started in 1800.

Lots of hysteria going around. I have not complaints against the discussion about living sensibly with consideration to the planet it's resources and how to maximise our future on it.

There is too much in the way of politics and hoopla with this whole thing. That's why we are building windfarms that are greenhouse gas emitters due the high capital that goes into them for minimal return. They only exist because governments fall over for the lobbyists.

We should go Nuclear here in SA not because it is Nuclear Electricity is cheaper than coal. Our coal is so cheap that will be hard to top. The reason SA should go nuclear is that we have so much of it and we should be selling it as high grade material rather than just dirt.

Studley

Gra

8th June 2007, 09:17 PM

Thanks Midge, that's a real relief. I think I'll get that Hummer now after all.

just make sure you dress like a pirate when driving it:U

Grunt

8th June 2007, 09:21 PM

I already do.

http://www.puplife.com/photocontest/tugboat-pirate.jpg

bitingmidge

8th June 2007, 09:27 PM

I'm not sure, but I did see in the news that China is aiming to cut it's greenhouse emmisions and become a leader in renewable energy, so maybe it all evens out.:wink:

As I understand it, China is aiming to HALVE it's current rate of increase.

It's current rate of annual increase, apparently, is equal to Australia's total annual production!

P:rolleyes:

himzol

8th June 2007, 09:34 PM

Ok heres my view on it:

Global Warming is happening, I know this because politicians are telling me so:roll: :roll:

It's too late to do anything about it, why? because politicians know about it!
( you never miss your water until your dry) politicians doubly so.

So if your near the water wear your floaties to work.

H. ( who is not dry :U :U )

ozwinner

8th June 2007, 09:53 PM

Heres some more Facts. (http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=peak+oil+myth&btnG=Google+Search&meta=)

Al :)

Honorary Bloke

8th June 2007, 09:55 PM

Since my air conditioning went kaput on Wednesday, I have noticed considerable global warming in my local area. Funny, I hadn't noticed it before. :rolleyes:

I still remember as a youth hearing about the New Ice Age that was coming and there was nothing we could do to prevent it. Hah, I guess we showed them! :D :wink:

BobL

8th June 2007, 10:18 PM

The Antarctic is a land mass with ice on it, if I'm not mistaken, and the Arctic is floating ice. So, if the Arctic ice melts, the seas will fall, not rise because water increases volume as it freezes and vice versa.
You forgot about greenland! It has kilometres of ice on it

Now, if the Antartic melts, that could be another story. The edge of it being ice, the same applies. But the ice on the land running back into the sea, well, who knows.

The ice volume change is insignificant compared to the expansion of the liquid water in the ocean from global warming. A lot of the arctic and antactic waters are at maximum liquid density, you only need a couple of degrees to expand the oceans to a point that make loss of the icecaps look like a beer fridge meltdown. Fortunately this will take a few hunderd years and I won't be here.

China

8th June 2007, 10:25 PM

Do your research, don't listen to the polies and you will discover that Global Warming simply does not exist

bitingmidge

8th June 2007, 10:34 PM

Do your research, don't listen to the polies and you will discover that Global Warming simply does not exist

he he, So now China and the West are on the same page! :D :D :D

P

woodbe

8th June 2007, 11:36 PM

Actually you can kill that one pretty fast.

Jug of water put a stack of ice cubes in it. Mark the level. Let the ice cubes melt. Level will be the same, because water expands as it freezes.

So the level might rise a little if the world warms and glaciers etc melt though I doubt it will be much. Ice caps melting will make no difference at all.

We are talking about a centimetre or two

Studley

Really?

A layer of ice up to two miles thick covers a continent as big as the United States and Mexico combined. Antarctic ice (http://www.gma.org/surfing/antarctica/ice.html) contains 70% of the world's fresh water (90% of the world's ice). If it were divided up, every person on Earth could have a chunk of ice larger than the Great Pyramid. Although 98% of Antarctica is ice, there is land underneath the ice cover, unlike the Arctic where the ice floats on top of the ocean.

http://www.gma.org/surfing/antarctica/antarctica.html

We shouldn't believe anything about Global Warming because the politicians told us. Those blighters have been denying anything to do with the environment since forever. The only reason they are hopping on the bandwagon now is that they realise most of their voters are already riding on it.

woodbe.

Studley 2436

9th June 2007, 07:40 PM

Actually remember Richo's 1987 environment election? Won it for Labor on green preferences?

Politicians have never denied anything they could jump on and use for their own advantage.

So far as I can find there is global warming but it is to do with outside factors rather than a bit of CO2. The world has been here since when and it has warmed and cooled since time immemorial. We are only talking a few degrees change to the average tempreture between an ice age and warm periods.

It will happen and it will be nothing to do with mankinds actions. It would have happened anyway. The only worthwhile question is how can we manage to cope with it. We won't stop it, the sun is just going on putting out it's immense output and has it's hotter and cooler spells and will continue to do so until it goes Super Nova and turns Earth into a handfull of ash.

Sea level increases of 7 or 8 metres are just a headline figure. It is only there to get a headline and push the cause. The sea rising tempreture rising and rainfall decreasing? Oh yes the landmass will be sucked dry of any moisture that is there. Yeah right just think about that.

Suppose you sink most of the landmass under water. Much greater surface to the oceans, higher tempretures but less moisture in the air? Global warming must be doing something really funny to the composition of water.

The Global warming preachers ignore fact and reason to suit their own ends. The Earth has been warming since 1800 and the industrial revolution didn't happen until the 1890's. The earth cooled from 1945 to 1979. It was warm in the middle ages but cooler after that. This is all about a select bunch gaining influence with government. Nothing more or less.

It makes for bad policy and bad government. No one has taken time to consider what to do and how to manage the change. Too busy coming up with a more serious disaster.

Actually it reminds me of the hole in the Ozone layer we used to have. That one was dodgy science too. You go down wind of a volcano (Mt Erebus) that spews thousands of tons of chlorine into the atmosphere and take a reading there. Well of course there is a thin spot there. Take a look at where you are. Actually there was part of that arguement that blamed cars for that as well. It's the CO2 from car exhausts that get's way up high and destroys the O3 or ozone layer that filters UV light. Car's of course being such monsters also put out a lot of O3 but that just hangs around cities making smog. That was the lecture I got at University 5 or 10 times from the lecture theatre!

Global warming isn't about anything but a so called elite getting it''s hands in government pockets to finance it's life style.

Much like those environmental campaigns of the past.

Studley

Grunt

9th June 2007, 08:15 PM

So far as I can find there is global warming but it is to do with outside factors rather than a bit of CO2.

A bit? CO2 is a proven green house gas.

http://timeforchange.org/sites/timeforchange.org/files/pictures/CO2-emissions-concentrations.jpg

The world has been here since when and it has warmed and cooled since time immemorial. We are only talking a few degrees change to the average tempreture between an ice age and warm periods.

Yes quite so. It is just happening faster than ever. You should have a look at the Crude documentary. It's available from www.abc.net.au (http://abc.net.au/science/crude/)

It will happen and it will be nothing to do with mankinds actions. It would have happened anyway. The only worthwhile question is how can we manage to cope with it. We won't stop it, the sun is just going on putting out it's immense output and has it's hotter and cooler spells and will continue to do so until it goes Super Nova and turns Earth into a handfull of ash.

See the ABC doco on Crude.

The Global warming preachers ignore fact and reason to suit their own ends. The Earth has been warming since 1800 and the industrial revolution didn't happen until the 1890's. The earth cooled from 1945 to 1979. It was warm in the middle ages but cooler after that. This is all about a select bunch gaining influence with government. Nothing more or less.

Read this article from New Scientist (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11639).

The mid-century cooling appears to have been largely due to a high concentration of sulphate aerosols in the atmosphere, emitted by industrial activities and volcanic eruptions (http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19225822.300). Sulphate aerosols have a cooling effect on the climate because they scatter light from the Sun, reflecting its energy back out into space (http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.255.5043.423).
The rise in sulphate aerosols was largely due to the increase in industrial activities at the end of the second world war. In addition, the large eruption of Mount Agung in 1963 produced aerosols which cooled the lower atmosphere by about 0.5°C (http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.194.4272.1413), while solar activity levelled off after increasing at the beginning of the century

Suppose you sink most of the landmass under water. Much greater surface to the oceans, higher tempretures but less moisture in the air? Global warming must be doing something really funny to the composition of water.

You will find if you actually do a bit of research that there will be more rainfall than currently. The tropics will expand south and north. The deserts that are currently on both sides of the equator will move north and south. This means that SE Australia will be desert where it was once temperate.

You really, really should read that New Scientist article I posted earlier as well as the Crude documentary.

Global Warming is real and it is man made.

mic-d

9th June 2007, 11:20 PM

I don't know why I waste my time:doh: But being a research scientist in organic chemistry in a past life I guess I just hate it when I see people peddling misinformation. People who listen to other people with no clue, who come up with ridiculous simple (incorrect)analogies to explain why their untenable views are correct and the majority of science is incorrect. Studley, have you been reading the pseudoscience of Ken Ring? I don't really know where to start but I've added a few notes below to get started and along with people like Gumby perhaps we can convince you this is real and man-made??

quote=Studley 2436;525341
The Global warming preachers ignore fact and reason to suit their own ends. The Earth has been warming since 1800 and the industrial revolution didn't happen until the 1890's. The earth cooled from 1945 to 1979. It was warm in the middle ages but cooler after that. This is all about a select bunch gaining influence with government. Nothing more or less.
The industrial revolution began in mid 18th century, not 1890. The earth may well have cooled during the post war period due to man made particulate matter in the air. In fact an Australian scientist has determined that although the temperatures are increasing, evaporation of water is decreasing due to particulate matter in the atmosphere leading to less photons reaching water, and it is the level of light that is the primary driver of evaporation, not heat as you might expect.(So I figure driving a deisel is doing a good turn for the earth :) )

Actually it reminds me of the hole in the Ozone layer we used to have. That one was dodgy science too. You go down wind of a volcano (Mt Erebus) that spews thousands of tons of chlorine into the atmosphere and take a reading there. Well of course there is a thin spot there.
That wasn't dodgy science, CFC's have been detected in the stratosphere. It is CFC's that catalyse the destruction of ozone, or rather a chlorine radical that derives from CFC's. CFC's are man-made and did not exist in nature before we made them. Molecular chlorine such as may be released from a volcano is stable and cannot be converted into the chlorine radical under the conditions that exist in the stratosphere.

Take a look at where you are. Actually there was part of that arguement that blamed cars for that as well. It's the CO2 from car exhausts that get's way up high and destroys the O3 or ozone layer that filters UV light. now that is dodgy science, CO2 doesn't destroy ozone
Global warming isn't about anything but a so called elite getting it''s hands in government pockets to finance it's life style.
Who are the elite you speak of??
Much like those environmental campaigns of the past.

Cheers
Michael

woodbe

9th June 2007, 11:33 PM

The simple reality is that just because you don't want Global Warming to be true, it's not going to lie down and go away.

On top of that there are powerful people and corporations on both sides who have a lot to gain by influencing opinion one way or another.

It all just muddies the water. I'm not surprised people like Studly don't believe it.

Tom Sawyer was right on the money when he said : "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt"

woodbe.

johnc

10th June 2007, 12:02 AM

Fair go Michael, give poor old Studley a break. I think he must have been smoking something really weird to come up with that much mis guided nonsense and actually think it is beleivable.

Studley most of what you have written makes no sense at all it is nothing but a series of half baked facts drawn together in an appallingly simplistic way that does no credit to the naysayer arguement at all. The ozone arguement is one in which no one is in dispute except the lunatic fringe and should not have been included. The evidence on green house gas has become pretty overwhelming especially since the early 1990's and this sort of discussion takes us no where.

Better house design capturing the Northerly aspect (Southern for those the other side of the equator) and decent insulation provides us with far more liveable homes. Lower power consumption as a result gives us smaller energy bills and more cash to spend on other things. Renewable energy means less waste material and fewer holes in the ground. It also means for those downwind of a coal fired power station that we end up with cleaner air and less asthma and other respitory disease if we can clean up emissions. Developing the technology is a win for those countries that embrace change. Change is what drives economic development and provides jobs. For those that want things to stay as they are go back to flat earth theory for you have no value in a developing world.

Developing sustainable lifestyles is the way of the future we cannot keep mining the earths resources at the current rate, and in time recycling will become a massive industry that exceeds that of mining but none of us are likely to be alive to see that. Ever since the dawn of man we have experienced change and now the pace of change is very fast. The climate change sceptics are largely those incapable of expanding their minds to the idea that intelligent change can have far reaching benefits and lead to an improvement for all, and its about time we stopped this bickering over the cause of change and started to focus on what type of change can help us all.

It has been argued that changes to housing codes in Oz would make housing unaffordable. Well look around you at the massive spiral in housing prices, the arguement was a crock of cow poo we have unaffordable houses that are also inefficient. Houses in the U.S. have far better effeciency ratings than our own and it hasn't killed their building industry, but it does mean they consume less energy per capita than we do. A lot of the economic arguement by our Government is a sign of our leaders lacking the will to move forward with decent policy, and being unable to grasp the concept that change is inevitable. For the last few years our leadership has stagnated on economic policy as being the main driver of the country, but that is not enough they also have to provide vision and direction and if you look closely you will see very little of that.

When are we going to start looking at addressing climate change as a positive rather than a negative,.

John.

Schtoo

10th June 2007, 01:47 AM

I dunno about the global warming thing (Not anything I am going to say here anyway), but I do have a question.

Can it cause heavy electrical storms?

Because we just went through a pretty big one last night, and I don't know why.

I love big storms, and this one scared the absolute cr@p out of even me. All 6+ hours of it.

Maybe it's being able to see clearly outside at night due to lightning strikes rather than moonlight that did it? :oo:

Maybe having the house shake like it was hit by a bus several times?

I'd love to know what the strike count was for around here, must have been well into the thousands...

Edit:Just found out. 25,000 today, and today was quiet...

If making the earth warmer causes more lightning, then we are all pretty much fouled up I think if last night was just a taste. :(

Studley 2436

10th June 2007, 01:55 AM

mmmmmm Global warming theorist only manage to get their theories to work by ignoring the influence of the sun on Earth's climate!

Who is going to get the hockey stick out first?

Studley

woodbe

10th June 2007, 02:32 AM

Houses in the U.S. have far better effeciency ratings than our own and it hasn't killed their building industry, but it does mean they consume less energy per capita than we do.

Figure 1.24a. Unit consumption of electricity by households (OECD)

http://www.worldenergy.org/wec-geis/publications/reports/eepi/progress_achieved/fig1_24a.gif

Source: World Energy Council. http://www.worldenergy.org/

Houses in the US are more energy efficient than ours because of their winter climate. Unfortunately, that colder weather and the mindset of the occupants results in higher consumption.

woodbe.

Studley 2436

10th June 2007, 02:58 AM

A bit? CO2 is a proven green house gas.

http://timeforchange.org/sites/timeforchange.org/files/pictures/CO2-emissions-concentrations.jpg

Global Warming is real and it is man made.

Sheeze in 10 years your figures say we have gone from 355 to 371 parts per million! Being generous to you that is 3.5% to 3.7% if the figures are any good at all which I can't say not being a scientist committed to that field.

Sorry Global warming happened long before mans activity could be anything to do with it. Going into CO2 levels of the past few thousand years it appears more likely that it was a trailing factor. Tempreture rose and so CO2 rose.

Why do you guys treat this like a holy mantra?

Studley

mic-d

10th June 2007, 08:24 AM

quote=Studley 2436;525496Sheeze in 10 years your figures say we have gone from 355 to 371 parts per million! Being generous to you that is 3.5% to 3.7% if the figures are any good at all which I can't say not being a scientist committed to that field.
So you can say that global warming is not man-made because...??? Either you understand the meaning of these numbers to make your claims or you don't

Sorry Global warming happened long before mans activity could be anything to do with it. Going into CO2 levels of the past few thousand years it appears more likely that it was a trailing factor. Tempreture rose and so CO2 rose.
Where is the evidence, show us the money!

Why do you guys treat this like a holy mantra?

Studley[/quote]

ptc

10th June 2007, 11:46 AM

"Global warming isn't about anything but a so called elite getting it''s hands in government pockets to finance it's life style."
Studley
SAID IT ALL !!

Gingermick

10th June 2007, 12:20 PM

less photons reaching water, and it is the level of light that is the primary driver of evaporation, not heat as you might expect.l

I thought a photon was a packet of energy (heat), least that is what Einstein et al thought when trying to explain the dual nature (wave/particle) of light

namtrak

10th June 2007, 12:34 PM

I'm not sure about all of this, but I do know one thing which is my motivation.

When I'm taking my dirt nap I don't want my kids to tell their kids that their grandfather was told about global warming in 2007, but he chose to do nothing about it.

Regardless of wether there is global warming or not, I believe it is a moot point. Either way we should ALL be teaching our kids about sustainability, self-sufficiency and independence - basic skills whichever way you look at it.

reeves

10th June 2007, 12:42 PM

Some inetresting posts.

I doubt if anyones gonna hear the end of global warming for a while.
Its very real issue,a complex one, as old as the earth itself but humans have only been measuring it or pumping out C02 for a short time in evolutionary terms

Wiki has a good basic rundown on it

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

Global warming is the increase in the average temperature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record) of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean) in recent decades and its projected continuation.
Global average air temperature near the Earth's surface rose 0.74 ± (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plus-minus_sign) 0.18 °C (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsius) (1.3 ± 0.32 °F (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit)) during the past century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change) (IPCC) concludes, "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change) the observed increase in anthropogenic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropogenic) greenhouse gas concentrations,"[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#_note-grida7) which leads to warming of the surface and lower atmosphere by increasing the greenhouse effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect). Natural phenomena such as solar variation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation) combined with volcanoes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano) have probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950, but a small cooling effect since 1950.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#_note-0)[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#_note-1) These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change), including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G8). The American Association of Petroleum Geologists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Association_of_Petroleum_Geologists) is the only scientific society that rejects these conclusions,[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#_note-2)[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#_note-3) and a few individual scientists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming) also disagree with parts of them.[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#_note-4)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/64/Global_Warming_Predictions_Map_2.jpg

and the Weather Makers book by Tim Flannery is definaltey worth reading

http://www.theweathermakers.com/

the global warming art site is cool and has heaps of graphs and other data

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/

Sturdee

10th June 2007, 12:59 PM

Studley 2436

10th June 2007, 01:09 PM

Where is the evidence, show us the money!

what is very well known throughout the scientific community, is that higher resolution studies of the same ice cores revealed that the temperature changes came first then were followed by changes in CO2. (Mudelsee, 2001; Clark, 2003; Vakulenko et al., 2004)

Studley

woodbe

10th June 2007, 01:20 PM

Why do you guys treat this like a holy mantra?

Studley

Well, probably for the same reasons you don't. :doh:

I actually don't treat it as a holy mantra. It has been a topic of interest to me for a lot longer than the current media frenzy. Like you, I'm no scientist, but there are two things in my thinking that lead me to accept the pro global warming as the most probable scenario:

1) We humans are consuming the planetary resources at an exponentially growing rate, and we have identified and measured the effects of that consumption on the atmosphere, oceans and land.

2) The scientific community has been steadily and increasingly declaring their support for the existence of human-mediated climate change. Especially those scientists working in the field of atmospheric science.

As mere mortals, we often get bombarded with the alternative viewpoint from scientists with very important sounding credentials. One of the tests that I think is worth doing, is to find out if their credentials are in the field of atmospherics, because that's where the argument is at.

Labeling the whole pro viewpoint as some sort of conspiracy manipulation of the public is a very convenient method of abrogating personal responsibility for our actions and their effects on our planet.

The ozone hole is a good example of human impact on the planet and our ability to work together to do something about it. You do know that it has stopped growing since CFC's were virtually eliminated worldwide by the Montreal Protocol? That all developed nations co-operated and found ways of getting developing nations on board so that stringent targets could be met? That there were accusations of 'speculative science' and economic damage directed at the pro-ozone depletion scientific community when they went public with their theory. Amazingly, (not), the nay-sayers went strangely quiet when the ozone hole appeared over Antarctica.

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s703932.htm

It's not the same with global warming (it's never the same), but there are striking parallels in our responses to the news of a new threat to our established way of life.

I guess I'd rather be wrong supporting doing something now than right supporting doing nothing. I'm not much of a gambler, and we actually need this planet to be really supportive of life until the boffins can find another one :)

woodbe.

DakotaGurl

10th June 2007, 01:34 PM

Well, probably for the same reasons you don't. :doh:

I actually don't treat it as a holy mantra. It has been a topic of interest to me for a lot longer than the current media frenzy. Like you, I'm no scientist, but there are two things in my thinking that lead me to accept the pro global warming as the most probable scenario:

1) We humans are consuming the planetary resources at an exponentially growing rate, and we have identified and measured the effects of that consumption on the atmosphere, oceans and land.

2) The scientific community has been steadily and increasingly declaring their support for the existence of human-mediated climate change. Especially those scientists working in the field of atmospheric science.

As mere mortals, we often get bombarded with the alternative viewpoint from scientists with very important sounding credentials. One of the tests that I think is worth doing, is to find out if their credentials are in the field of atmospherics, because that's where the argument is at.

Labeling the whole pro viewpoint as some sort of conspiracy manipulation of the public is a very convenient method of abrogating personal responsibility for our actions and their effects on our planet.

The ozone hole is a good example of human impact on the planet and our ability to work together to do something about it. You do know that it has stopped growing since CFC's were virtually eliminated worldwide by the Montreal Protocol? That all developed nations co-operated and found ways of getting developing nations on board so that stringent targets could be met? That there were accusations of 'speculative science' and economic damage directed at the pro-ozone depletion scientific community when they went public with their theory. Amazingly, (not), the nay-sayers went strangely quiet when the ozone hole appeared over Antarctica.

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s703932.htm

It's not the same with global warming (it's never the same), but there are striking parallels in our responses to the news of a new threat to our established way of life.

I guess I'd rather be wrong supporting doing something now than right supporting doing nothing. I'm not much of a gambler, and we actually need this planet to be really supportive of life until the boffins can find another one :)

woodbe.

woodbe,

Well said, bless you.

Heather :2tsup:

Bleedin Thumb

10th June 2007, 02:24 PM

Its hard to believe in global warming today as I sit here freezin my ass off!

Come on summmerrrr!!!!

Studley 2436

10th June 2007, 02:41 PM

As mere mortals, we often get bombarded with the alternative viewpoint from scientists with very important sounding credentials. One of the tests that I think is worth doing, is to find out if their credentials are in the field of atmospherics, because that's where the argument is at.

I guess I'd rather be wrong supporting doing something now than right supporting doing nothing.
woodbe.

I think you make my point rather well Woodbe. The debate right now is mostly atmosperics aka propaganda.

Now considering weather can't be predicted a couple weeks out how is it the radical side can predict it 50 years in advance?

We know CO2 is rising. We know also the Earth is getting warmer. It has been too easy to make the assumption that it must be mans fault. Beyond the chest beating and wailing that we must save the planet for our children a reasoned and dry eyed approach would be much more beneficial.

Studley

Bleedin Thumb

10th June 2007, 03:40 PM

Studley, thought you might find this interesting. It explians the makeup and the brief of the recently released UN report on climate change.

Recognizing the problem of potential global climate change, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. It is open to all members of the
UN and WMO. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

This report prepared by the worlds top meteorologists AKA blokes that know about "atmospherics" consisted of 145 eminent scientists and was reveiwed line by line by hundreds of other scientists.

This process would have produced a "watered down" picture of where we are and where we are headed with the climate as no ultra radical viewpoint would stand out.
In spite of this process the report states that climate warming is rising faster than the previous models predicted and that the socio-economic side effects of this increase will be horrendious if we do'nt take radical action now to halt and reduce CO2 emmissions.

Obviously I stand in the "believe" camp. I have a scientific background which may help, but I can see why such a large percentage of the population may be cynical.... Our own political leaders have been feeding us the line of "don't believe the greenies" crap for years.

If you look closely at Bush's and Howards motivation for denying Global warming you may realise its not the scientists that have been having a lend of us ... its our political leaders.

woodbe

10th June 2007, 03:54 PM

Au Contraire dear Studley,

You make your own points, and have already made them very clear.

What are you going to do if the Atmospheric Scientists turn out to be more reliable over 50+ years than your local weather man is over a few days?

I'm not understanding how anything I have said thus far can be construed as 'chest beating and wailing', but there you go.

woodbe.

rod@plasterbrok

10th June 2007, 04:24 PM

woodbe

10th June 2007, 04:36 PM

I think too many people have made up their minds and are now oblivious to any new statistical and scientific eveidence to the contrary.

Rod,

Are you including or excluding yourself from that group of people?

Regards,

woodbe.

dazzler

10th June 2007, 06:18 PM

Sorry guys, but there has been so much overstating of facts and inuendo by claiming if, buts and maybe's to reach the current conclusion of pro man made global warming, that it is impossible to know who to believe.

I agree it is a worth while goal to reduce Co2 and other polutants as a matter of course.

But I don't agree that we should do this at a massive cost to society on the premise of global warming.

There are too many arguments against man made global warming to ignore to just except the mantra of the greens.

I think too many people have made up their minds and are now oblivious to any new statistical and scientific eveidence to the contrary.

Cheers

I Rod

With respect, and I know thats sounds condescending but I dont mean it to be, this is not a greens issue.

Though the greens may get a lot of the media reporting I think we all tend to miss the dedicated and unbiased scientists that are behind a lot of the research. If you have not already watched the program CRUDE then I really suggest you watch it at online at

http://www.abc.net.au/science/crude/

At times a little dry, these scientists are hardly doomsayers like many seem to think those that speak out about global warming are.

The same is similar with any arguements about politicians.

The simple fact IMO is that the govt of the day has to drag its feet because to act in any serious manner will have them kicked out because we humans dont want to change our lifestyles and the opposition will make grandiose claims that they will go back on once in power.

So I am backing the scientists, not on face value but on spending time reviewing and trying to understand the facts from thier studies, and hoping that like a big wave public opinion continues to press.

Overall I look at it this way.

If we do nothing and the scientists are right then we are going to suffer, the extent of that may be slight discomfort at the bowser through to the end of the human way of life.

Or we do as much as we can, which may include a lot of changes in our lives, and at least the environment is a lot cleaner.

cheers

dazzler :wink:

rod@plasterbrok

10th June 2007, 07:05 PM

It is the greens that whip it up into a frenzy of unbelievable distortion of the real facts.

I agree with you go with the scientist. But we need to take an objective view of both sides of the science.

There are many disclaiming man made Global Warming. What I am sick of is that alarmists are saying the jury is out and no further discussion.

I don't believe any one truly knows the facts and to be totally one eyed about it right now is not good.

I am still open minded about it all just not convinced. It concerns me when outlandish claims are made to frighten people. An there is a lot of that going around.

I don't disagree with the need to cut down on pollution in general. We will all be better off for it. We just dont need the knee jerk reactions from the pollies that will spend billions of dollars with no result.

In Australia we could cut our Co2 emissions completly and it wont make a scrap of difference globally. Unless the Soviets, China and India also reduce their emissions we are wasting our money.

You should watch The Great Global Warming Swindle type it into Google.
It gives another scientific view.

dazzler

10th June 2007, 07:16 PM

Yep, saw it before,

thats the one with the FORD sponsership.....

http://www.channel4.com/science/microsites/G/great_global_warming_swindle/expert_1.html

MMMMM..... no vested interest there I spose:D

But I will do some homework and have another look :)

dazzler

10th June 2007, 07:21 PM

Hang on, now its the new Toyota Rav4 ........

Come on GM....

dazzler

10th June 2007, 07:23 PM

Wait......wait........now Vauxhall Astra Twin Top...with extra gadgets :D

rod@plasterbrok

10th June 2007, 07:33 PM

LOL gotta love that argument re vested interest.

I think that is part of the problem there is vested interest on both sides.

Never before has so much money been poured into the researches pockets no vested interest there?

The environmentalist have never had such a hold over the average joe no vested interest here either?

Vested interests abound. That is why it is so much harder to get to the truth and even more of a reason to look at both sides to get a balanced view.

I am very sceptical of people making hysterical claims like the sea rising 100m etc. And very sceptical of people, when I here these claims repeated as gospel.

Steady as she goes keep researching with an open mind and stick to the facts. In the mean time be practical about reducing emissions not hysterical.

Studley 2436

10th June 2007, 07:53 PM

Let's ban coal power stations export of coal oil and gas and go fully Nuclear!

Maybe we can get our Nuclear plants to produce hydrogen for Greenhouse neutral cars?

Actually the Toyota Prius was assesed as saving CO2 at the cost of $600/tonne of CO2. That's the consumer that pays, diesel cars are much better in their cost of each tonne reduced.

Still to be proven that CO2 is the problem historical data suggests the Earth was warming anyway. That being so we should be more concerned with how to cope with the change.

Could kill about 4 billion people and go back to subsitence living, hunter gatherer sort of thing although hopefully that is not where the thing ends up.

Studley

woodbe

10th June 2007, 08:52 PM

Re the Swindle documentary:

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

Read and weep. It's documentaries like that which derail any sort of sensible debate. Some Media companies will publish anything if it gets their name in lights (ok. I had never heard of Channel 4 before...) :)

I agree that we need healthy skepticism, but Swindle is rubbish on so many fronts, I'm surprised it even got mentioned here.

Studley, the CO2 benefits of buying a Prius (or a Golf diesel or whatever) pale into insignificance when compared to not needing to drive a car. If you were in Paris for instance, you wouldn't have that hulking V8 in your avatar that we Australians aspire to (and maybe even need), you would have a little Renault or other small economical car and you would use it rarely because your government has installed a decent public transportation system. We in Australia are so far behind the 8-ball on this issue that it makes baby Jesus cry. Most of us don't even know we are behind the game...

woodbe.

reeves

10th June 2007, 09:08 PM

Recent news update

http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,21881015-421,00.html

No nuclear power, says Rudd

June 10, 2007 10:06am

Article from: AAP
 Font size: + (http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,21881015-421,00.html#) - (http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,21881015-421,00.html#)
Send this article: Print (http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,21881015-421,00.html#) Email (http://www.news.com.au/mercury/email/popup/0,22904,21881015-421,00.html)

  OPPOSITION Leader Kevin Rudd today insisted Australia could reach ambitious emissions reductions targets without resorting to nuclear power.
Mr Rudd said the key was to establish an emissions trading market, not to adopt nuclear power.

"The science of this is pretty basic. All the scientists around the world agree that we have got to reach a point whereby we actually bring total emissions down. That is the carbon target,'' he said.

Mr Rudd said once the target was set, the emissions trading scheme and the market could establish the most cost-effective means of achieving that target.

"Then you would see a huge investment in alternative clean energies like solar, like wind, like geothermal and the rest. You'd set the right price signals for clean coal technologies and carbon sequestration and also for gas.

"On the question of nuclear ... our position on that is for Australia, with this rich array of other alternative energy options available, we can achieve our overall carbon target without taking on the extra safety and environmental risks which the nuclear option for Australia would represent.''

Mr Rudd said Prime Minister John Howard's commitment to a policy of pledging and reviewing climate change targets sounded like pledging before the election then reviewing afterwards.

"Mr Howard has just got to get fair dinkum about climate change. One of the risks to Australia's economic future is us not acting on climate change and water,'' he said

Studley 2436

10th June 2007, 10:22 PM

:roflmao: well actually being a pro Photographer the pic of the GTHO was a top pic of a racer pulling a slide. Actually he was trying to get the beast under control.

He did that slide almost speared off opposite me but it snaked back straight at me, I was set to jump down the embankment when he got a grip on it and was going back the other way pulled it back towards the middle and fishtailed off down the road. HAIRY STUFF.

So I like the pic. My own car is a Mazda 3 which is he most fun of any car I have owned including several twin cam Fiats that were pretty special in their day. The Mazda is cleaner uses less fuel and more fun to boot as well as being a lot safer.

Talking about public transport I would love to see dual rail lines between our capital cities for starters. The number of trucks we have doing interstate transport is ridiculous when rail is just so much better economically. Public transport in Adelaide is as you say a joke with only a few heavy rail lines and most of the city is not serviced by rail. That deserves looking into. We don't know if it is economical or not. When I visited Tokyo you could get the subway anywhere. Short walk from anywhere to a train station. They even sell the walking distance to the station as a feature of their real estate. It is one of the things people ask when they buy a house. I don't think that is realistic in Adelaide as we are one million. Tokyo is more like 30 million in a similar enough space. Over 4 million people go through it's three main stations in each direction each day.

I don't think I am unbalanced in my views although I am accused of being on drugs. All I want is a reasoned and sensible approach to the whole issue.

Studley

Honorary Bloke

10th June 2007, 10:43 PM

I don't know about any of you guys, but I am sick to death of hearing about how doomed we are from global warming. Just my bitch.

Poor Rod. :( Obviously having a small rant only served to exacerbate the debate, at least around here. The moral of the story, I'm afraid, is that if you are tired of hearing about something, don't say so out loud in a thread. :rolleyes: :D :D :wink:

reeves

10th June 2007, 10:44 PM

So maybe we reduce C02 emissions from cars, planes and coal fired power stations, what about people?

http://timworstall.typepad.com/timworstall/2006/07/solving_global_.html

The Basics.

The essential idea is that human beings are pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere than the environment can successfully pull out of it. This leads to a rise in CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and thus, given the undoubted existence of the greenhouse effect, higher temperatures.

The Blame.

The blame tends to be placed on either land use changes, such as deforestation, or the use of fossil fuels. As an example, according to GEO 2000, (a UN type organisation and thus, like the IPCC, a reasonable source of figures and numbers) some 24 billion tonnes of carbon in 1996. No doubt there are later more accurate figures for later years but let’s stay with this one I’ve just found.

The Humans.

According to Heavy Lifting, a human being at rest emits:

30 minutes x 18 breaths x 0.5 liters CO2 x 0.001997 KG/L = 0.419 KG of CO2.

Which, if my maths is correct (30 mins x 2 x 24 x 365) means 7 tonnes CO2 per human per year. There’s 6 billion of us so that’s 42 billion tonnes CO2 per year globally just from our own breath.

However, a human exercising (or performing physical labour, pretty much the same thing) emits:

30 minutes x 42 breaths x 3 liters CO2 x 0.001997 KG/L = 7.5 KG of CO2.

18 times as much or so.

Sports.

Obviously, as Craig points out, in order to save the planet we must ban exercise and sport.

But we can go further. Those 3 billion of our fellows in poverty are indeed doing hard physical labour in order to survive. It’s pretty much the definition of poverty, that you don’t have indoor work, no heavy lifting (sorry Craig).

The Effect of Physical Labour.

So, if we take those 3 billion, they work 8 hours a day, 300 days a year, at the higher CO2 emission rates, we get:

3 billion x 8 x 300 x 2 x 7.5 kg CO2....108 billion tonnes of CO2.

CO2 to Carbon.

In order to make our figures comparable we now have to convert CO2 to carbon. We do this by multiplying by 12 divided by 44 .

This gives us 29 billion tonnes of carbon released into the atmosphere by the poor of the planet.

The Responsibility of the Rich and Poor.

Clearly we rich bastards contribute in two ways. We are responsible for all (at least, let us assume we are for this example) the carbon released by fossil fuels, cement and so on.

We are also responsible for the higher emissions caused when we exercise, or when sport is played. We also contribute some 6 billion tonnes carbon from our at rest breathing.

The poor, through no fault of their own, are responsible for roughly the same emissions, given the hard physical labour they must do to survive.

The Solution.

There is one obvious solution. Let’s go kill all the poor people, as they are emitting as much as we are.

This may not find favour amongst some bleeding heart liberal types.

Another would be to help them all get rich, so that they emit as we do. If we at the same time ban all forms of sport and exercise then global emissions will be lower than they currently are.

Clearly and obviously there is something wrong with these numbers. For it cannot actually be true that the poor emit as much as the rich, can it? Surely we rich world consumers are entirely to blame?

rhancock

10th June 2007, 10:46 PM

What about 'treading lightly'? Isn't that the basic argument here? How much of an impact are you happy to leave behind you?

If we start from the premise that the less damage we do to our environmet the better, then the whole global warming is irrelevant. The problem of course, is that its much more attractive to drive a state of the art gas guzzler than to share a bus seat with that smelly bloke who talks loudly all the way to the city, so most people need a rocket somewhere painful before they'll consider changing habits they've never had to think about. If the current global warming 'crisis' serves that purpose, then thats great.

BTW, 20 years ago I was a spotty teenager reading about global warming in New Scientist and wondering why nothing was being done about it then. Since then, I've worked hard to reduce my impact on the planet, often with a feeling of shoveling s$%t uphill while the guy next door sits in his yard revving his ute pumping black smoke into the air while plastic bags float around in pools of oil....

johnc

10th June 2007, 11:06 PM

Studley,

Don't get to excited about the drug jab, it was in jest. However I will take the opportunity to comment on the thrust of your last comments.

We have fallen in love with the motor car and in recent years we seem to find our cities clogged with the things, as we sit idling in traffic wondering why every one else is not using public transport or whatever. I couldn't agree with you more on the rail system, surely it is the most logical way to move freight between our major cities if only we could get the on loading and offl oading logistics working smoothly. I think in Oz with large distances and very little public transport away from the major centres the car is going to be with us for some time to come.

There is much about the CO2 issue that can bring about more liveable cities and improve the air around us as well as the enviroment. The science surrounding the global warming debate will continue to grow but since the 1970's there has been an increasing awareness that we cannot keep exploiting the earth the way we are with out regard to future generations, or to our ability to rachet up manufacturing to the point that our tips wont be big enough to take the worn out stuff.

Ultimately we are all consumers and the debate should probably focus on sustainable consumerism, in the products we buy and in recovering as much material as we can from discarded products. We should also look at the way we consume energy in our homes and factories, from the time that Watt invented the steam engine we have been finding ways to produce cleaner energy and more efficient energy to boot. If Government provides the economic incentives and leadership in developing ways to live greener there is no reason why this cannot be acheived. Perhaps we would be better off in smaller homes, without cars and each house producing its own power and recycling water to the point we barely need to call on our rivers. However that is never going to happen if people canot see gains from change including better rather the a poorer lifestyle.

What we need is rather than arguing over climate change is a vision of where we wish to head, the world needs to be in step to a point, and it has to be done in a way that developing nations are not cut out of the opportunity to improve their lives. Oh yeah and as a world we have to stop breeding faster than rabbits. This will never happen, but if sufficient countries come on board great positive change is achievable, not just in this but in advanced nations assisting poorer countries to improve health care and education which is necessary if any of this has a chance of happening. It doesn't mean we ever get there it just means we work at it, and hope a future generation gets close.

We are just going through a phase of whats important to us and whats not, and I hope we get it right.

John

reeves

10th June 2007, 11:31 PM

http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics

How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic

Below is a complete listing of the articles in "How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic," a series by Coby Beck containing responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming. There are four separate taxonomies; arguments are divided by:
Stages of Denial (http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics#Stages%20of%20Denial),
Scientific Topics (http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics#Scientific%20Topics),
Types of Argument (http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics#Types%20of%20Argument), and
Levels of Sophistication (http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics#Levels%20of%20Sophistication).Individual articles will appear under multiple headings and may even appear in multiple subcategories in the same heading.

Stages of Denial

There's nothing happening
Inadequate evidence
Contradictory evidence
It's cold today in Wagga Wagga (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/31/214357/31)
Antarctic ice is growing (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/211834/644)
The satellites show cooling (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/10/31/223318/86)
What about mid-century cooling? (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/14560/6189)
Global warming stopped in 1998 (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/4/175028/329)
But the glaciers are not melting (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/7/175429/444)
Antarctic sea ice is increasing (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/7/192721/175)
Observations show climate sensitivity is not very high (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/9/223615/983)
Sea level in the Arctic is falling (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/9/162012/366)
Some sites show cooling (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/9/182921/777)
No consensus
Global warming is a hoax (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/11/23656/027)
There is no consensus (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/221250/49)
Position statements hide debate (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/22399/297)
Consensus is collusion (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/13/23211/495)
Peiser refuted Oreskes (http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/14/1511/4868)
We don't know why it's happening
Models don't work
Prediction is impossible
We can't be sure
Climate change is natural
It happened before
It's part of a natural change
It's not caused by CO2
Climate change is not bad
The effects are good
The effects are minor
Change is normal
Climate change can't be stoppedScientific Topics

Temperature
Atmosphere
Extreme events
Temperature records
Storms
Droughts
Cryosphere
Glaciers
Sea ice
Ice sheets
Oceans

(http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/9/162012/366)
Modeling
Scenarios
Uncertainties
Climate forcings
Solar influences
Greenhouse gases
Aerosols
Paleo climate
Holocene
Ice ages
Geologic history
Scientific processTypes of Argument

Uninformed
Misinformed
Cherry Picking
Urban Myths
FUD
Non Scientific
Underdog Theories
CrackpotteryLevels of Sophistication

Silly
Naive
Specious
Scientific

ozwinner

11th June 2007, 08:39 AM

Hey Reeves, that list looks like the one the Mormons put out to convince people that there really is a god. :U

Al :)

mic-d

11th June 2007, 09:03 AM

Hey Reeves, that list looks like the one the Mormons put out to convince people that there really is a god. :U

Al :)

I thought you were God Al, after what you did to my posts:U Now I'm not playing in the sand-pit anymore if you keep painting my toys red.:U

Cheers
Michael

reeves

11th June 2007, 12:59 PM

Hey Reeves, that list looks like the one the Mormons put out to convince people that there really is a god. :U

Al :)

haha maybe, I found it quite entertaining and somewhat informative in terms of someone taking the time to compile the various sectionss..

there seems to be a kind of fervour developing around the GW issue, personally i try not to buy into it too much 'both' sides have reasonable arguements and then theres the truth..:wink:

rod@plasterbrok

11th June 2007, 01:17 PM

Czech president Vaclav Klaus (http://www.vaclavklaus.cz/klaus2/asp/clanek_tisk.asp?id=IgDUIjFzEXAz)puts it beautifully:
The - so called - climate change and especially man-made climate change has become one of the most dangerous arguments aimed at distorting human efforts and public policies in the whole world.

My ambition is not to bring additional arguments to the scientific climatological debate about this phenomenon. I am convinced, however, that up to now this scientific debate has not been deep and serious enough and has not provided sufficient basis for the policymakers’ reaction. What I am really concerned about is the way the environmental topics have been misused by certain political pressure groups to attack fundamental principles underlying free society. It becomes evident that while discussing climate we are not witnessing a clash of views about the environment but a clash of views about human freedom.

As someone who lived under communism for most of my life I feel obliged to say that the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity at the beginning of the 21st century is not communism or its various softer variants. Communism was replaced by the threat of ambitious environmentalism. This ideology preaches earth and nature and under the slogans of their protection - similarly to the old Marxists - wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning of the whole world.

The environmentalists consider their ideas and arguments to be an undisputable truth and use sophisticated methods of media manipulation and PR campaigns to exert pressure on policymakers to achieve their goals. Their argumentation is based on the spreading of fear and panic by declaring the future of the world to be under serious threat. In such an atmosphere they continue pushing policymakers to adopt illiberal measures, impose arbitrary limits, regulations, prohibitions, and restrictions on everyday human activities and make people subject to omnipotent bureaucratic decision-making. To use the words of Friedrich Hayek, they try to stop free, spontaneous human action and replace it by their own, very doubtful human design.

The environmentalist paradigm of thinking is absolutely static. They neglect the fact that both nature and human society are in a process of permanent change, that there is and has been no ideal state of the world as regards natural conditions, climate, distribution of species on earth, etc. They neglect the fact that the climate has been changing fundamentally throughout the existence of our planet and that there are proofs of substantial climate fluctuations even in known and documented history. Their reasoning is based on historically short and incomplete observations and data series which cannot justify the catastrophic conclusions they draw. They neglect the complexity of factors that determine the evolution of the climate and blame contemporary mankind and the whole industrial civilization for being the decisive factors responsible for climate change and other environmental risks.

Studley 2436

11th June 2007, 03:12 PM

and I suppose that is at the base of my reaction to the whole arguement. That the centralists have pretty much been running it.

Another thing is that both sides agree that CO2 is a following feature. The globe warms and CO2 rises. That being the case there are greater forces than CO2 that dictate the tempreture of the planet. If this were not so CO2 would be made to increase following an increase in tempreture and then would cause more warming and that would cause more CO2 and then more warming ad infinitum. The world would have caught on fire long ago if this were the case.

Likewise governments have proven themselves the most inefficient way of making any decision. Governments are the most successful at making bad decisions. So why can we trust goverment to make those decisions. Guaranteed they will get it wrong. They always do. So the talk of Carbon trading is bumpf. The reason being that no one actually wants to buy the stuff. What will they do with it? Make pencil leads? This means that Carbon trading is just another tax. It is that simple. Will that work? No it will just take opportunity away from people and deliver an advantage to those who are able to take advantage of the political system. Might it reduce CO2 outputs, highly unlikely, after all the People who signed on to Kyoto have all failed to meet their promised reductions which is cool for the bureaucracy as they are fining countries for not making targets.

Studley

woodbe

11th June 2007, 04:24 PM

"We'll all be rooned" said Hanrahan (1)

The problem is that the only people suggesting we DO something other than put our head in the sand and pretend nothing is happening are also the people who have been saying similar things for a long time. We've ignored them, and things got worse (pollution, water quality, air quality, etc) We listened to them, and things got better (eg. Ozone hole)

Like it or not, Governments are the only way of making any sort of community wide decision. That what they are there for actually.

(1) <big>Said Hanrahan</big>

<big>"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan
In accents most forlorn
Outside the church ere Mass began
One frosty Sunday morn. </big> <big>

The congregation stood about,
Coat collars to the ears,
And talked of stock and crops and drought
As it had done for years.

</big> <big>"It's looking crook," said Daniel Croke;
"Bedad, it's cruke, me lad,
For never since the banks went broke
Has seasons been so bad."

</big> <big>"It's dry, all right," said young O'Neil,
With which astute remark
He squatted down upon his heel
And chewed a piece of bark.

</big> <big>And so around the chorus ran
"It's keepin' dry, no doubt."
"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan,
"Before the year is out."

</big> <big>"The crops are done; ye'll have your work
To save one bag of grain;
From here way out to Back-o'-Bourke
They're singin' out for rain.

</big> <big>"They're singin' out for rain," he said,
"And all the tanks are dry."
The congregation scratched its head,
And gazed around the sky.

</big> <big>"There won't be grass, in any case,
Enough to feed an ass;
There's not a blade on Casey's place
As I came down to Mass."

</big> <big>"If rain don't come this month," said Dan,
And cleared his throat to speak -
"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan,
"If rain don't come this week."

</big> <big>A heavy silence seemed to steal
On all at this remark;
And each man squatted on his heel,
And chewed a piece of bark.

</big> <big>"We want an inch of rain, we do,"
O'Neil observed at last;
But Croke 'maintained' we wanted two
To put the danger past.

</big> <big>"If we don't get three inches, man,
Or four to break this drought,
We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan,
"Before the year is out."

</big> <big>In God's good time down came the rain;
And all the afternoon
On iron roof and window-pane
It drummed a homely tune.

</big> <big>And through the night it pattered still,
And lightsome, gladsome elves
On dripping spout and window-sill
Kept talking to themselves.

</big> <big>It pelted, pelted all day long,
A-singing at its work,
Till every heart took up the song
Way out to Back-o'-Bourke.

</big> <big>And every creek a banker ran,
And dams filled overtop;
"We'll all be rooned," said Hanrahan,
"If this rain doesn't stop."

</big> <big>And stop it did, in God's good time:
And spring came in to fold
A mantle o'er the hills sublime
Of green and pink and gold.

</big> <big>And days went by on dancing feet,
With harvest-hopes immense,
And laughing eyes beheld the wheat
Nid-nodding o'er the fence.

</big> <big>And, oh, the smiles on every face,
As happy lad and lass
Through grass knee-deep on Casey's place
Went riding down to Mass.

</big> <big>While round the church in clothes genteel
Discoursed the men of mark,
And each man squatted on his heel,
And chewed his piece of bark.

</big> <big>"There'll be bush-fires for sure, me man,
There will, without a doubt;
We'll all be rooned,"said Hanrahan,
"Before the year is out."

</big> <big>P. J. Hartigan ('John O'Brien') </big>

ozwinner

11th June 2007, 05:08 PM

I thought you were God Al,

Just a disciple, just a disciple.....I work for God.

Al :)

rhancock

11th June 2007, 10:15 PM

Czech president Vaclav Klaus (http://www.vaclavklaus.cz/klaus2/asp/clanek_tisk.asp?id=IgDUIjFzEXAz)puts it beautifully:

up to now this scientific debate has not been deep and serious enough
Really? 40 years of work by scientists around the world? Not deep and serious enough?

ambitious environmentalism ... wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind
Now we're getting to the really scary side of politics. The free and spontaneous evolution of mankind WILL result in the destruction of the planet that supports our life form, but this guy wants to be able to keep on doing whatever it takes to keep his economy ballooning to support his political career.

. To use the words of Friedrich Hayek, they try to stop free, spontaneous human action and replace it by their own, very doubtful human design.

So humans have the right to do whatever they like as long as it benefits one or more humans....

The environmentalist paradigm of thinking is absolutely static. They neglect the fact that both nature and human society are in a process of permanent change, that there is and has been no ideal state of the world as regards natural conditions, climate, distribution of species on earth, etc.

Well, true, in the UK for instance, the natural environment has been carefully managed for at least 2,00 years, and here in Oz, the landscape has been managed for something like 10,000 years. But still an 'ideal state of the world' would include a suitable temperature range, as much dry land as sustainable, space for at least one or two species other than humans.

They neglect the fact that the climate has been changing fundamentally throughout the existence of our planet and that there are proofs of substantial climate fluctuations even in known and documented history. Their reasoning is based on historically short and incomplete observations and data series which cannot justify the catastrophic conclusions they draw. They neglect the complexity of factors that determine the evolution of the climate and blame contemporary mankind and the whole industrial civilization for being the decisive factors responsible for climate change and other environmental risks.

True, there are just as many flawed arguments on the environmental side as any other section of human society, but at the end of the day, blindly using up a finite set of natural resources, whether they will end tomorrow of in 1,000 years, and arrogantly assuming that the planet will continue to support whatever style of human society we currently consider appropriate, is just not a sensible way to evolve. Surely the point of evolution is to get smarter?

rod@plasterbrok

11th June 2007, 10:27 PM

http://www.signforums.com/forums/index.php?act=Attach&type=post&id=104924

ernknot

11th June 2007, 11:04 PM

Geez, some of you guys get your nickers in a twist over things you can't control.

reeves

12th June 2007, 12:15 AM

The free and spontaneous evolution of mankind WILL result in the destruction of the planet

mmm who wrote this, did you write it rhancock ?

I that statement represents the rampant fearmongering and attempts at emotional maniplulation that seem to abound on the GW issue.
Arrrrrggg! the sky is falling! yelled chicken little:doh::o:no:

To pose a rationalist view for a moment, the earth has been around for 4.5billion years or so. In that time climate change has encompassed various extremes from molten, to ice ages, to no ice caps and full scale forests, comet and asteroid impacts, vast releases of greenhouse gases from within the earth, more ice ages. Around 99%of all species that have ever lived are extinct. The earth is either warming or cooling, the up and down cycles of climate change.

I find it extremely unlikely that current human activities WILL result in the destruction of the planet, the planet has survived far worse in the past. In fact i'd back the planet to survive humans anyday:;

There is no doubt human emissions and deforestion and basic population count is affecting the environment, its obvious but to suggest the earth cannot cope with it or adapt in time is false, and life goes on evolving, humans will die out in time and anything that happens on the way in 'disaster' terms that causes a population decrease, wars, floods, famines etc is essentially 'good' in environmental terms. Relieves the burden of human supply from the environment.

The earth will be fine, its just got a bad case of humans at the moment. ;-)

http://i151.photobucket.com/albums/s122/stevelydick/BizarreEarth.gif

rhancock

12th June 2007, 09:35 AM

Originally Posted by rhancock
The free and spontaneous evolution of mankind WILL result in the destruction of the planet

mmm who wrote this, did you write it rhancock ?

I that statement represents the rampant fearmongering and attempts at emotional maniplulation that seem to abound on the GW issue.
Arrrrrggg! the sky is falling! yelled chicken little:doh::o:no:

Ah, yes you're right I did write it... And you're right on its own it does sound like chicken little!

In fact I'm trying to make the same point that you are.... Perhaps it should read:
The free and spontaneous evolution of mankind will result in the destruction of that tiny portion of the planet's biosphere which supports human life, leading to the extinction of the human species.

Certainly the planet will survive, but if left to abuse the planet in the same way as the last 200 or so years, its surface will be covered with enormous holes where we've dug up the planets resources, enormous piles of rubbish that we turned the resources into for a few minutes amusement, with a huge number of enormous concrete jungles squashed in the spaces in between.

If you were watching the earth from space over the last 200 years, then human development would appear as a fungus spreading over the plkanet.