Environment problems

[BobL]

I don't dismiss the view point of the scientists. I just believe they are too quick to make it a conclusive irrefutable fact.
if you call 40 years too quick then that's how long they have been discussing this.


Their attempt to put down or stifle any view contrary to AGW "The debate is over" etc is simply wrong and discredits their claims. As does making false claims as to the possible effects of AGW.

Debate is never over but how long do we wait till we do anything?


I don't have any credentials, nor do I need them to form a view based of both sides of the argument.
I suppose you ay that to the surgeon as you are about to go in for an operation? Do you expect the surgeon to debate the finer points of plaster installation with you.


There are many with vested interests in both sides of the argument including the media. That does'nt make them right or wrong.
Everyone has vested interests, including the scientists, but now that a whole generation of scientists have come and gone and are still saying the same thing, the record is broken for long enough. There are plenty of other problems for scientists to work on.


I don't need to produce anything nor prove anything to have a point of view as nor do you. However, no evidence will change your point of view I feel. Where as if someone came up with some conclusive evidence rather than opinions then I may be swayed to agree with AGW.

Sure you can have an opinion - but as the Papua and New Guinean representative said to the USA, please stand out of the way while we attend to the urgently need environmental surgery.


I just refuse to be swayed by hype and false claims.
Me too - I have a very finely tuned scientific crap detector - I train people to develop factual crap detectors. The smelliest crap I can smell on this issue is coming firstly from the complete deniers of global warming, followed by those with interests in maintaining an excess CO2 generation status quo while the worlds sewers are backing up.:D

[rod@plasterbrok]

Well, there is no debate eh! I guess its all done and dusted (NOT).

Asdrid, there is no need whatsoever to respond to your post Bobs put down of others opinions. It would not matter who or what was put forward to argue against AGW some people will just not consider the posibility that they have it wrong nor consider other opinions.

This is exactly why I will not fall into the fold and accept what people say without proper debate or due consideration to other opinions. I note that opinions against AGW are written off as worthless by degrading the person putting it forward and not by assessing the argument and comming up with an alternative science to argue the point. This only strengthens my view people are being had by a ruse.

Like I said time will tell.

[rod@plasterbrok]

I suppose you ay that to the surgeon as you are about to go in for an operation? Do you expect the surgeon to debate the finer points of plaster installation with you.



LOL got a laugh out of that one.

[silentC]

You obviously feel very strongly that this is all some sort of conspiracy. I find that attitude to this sort of debate strange but I suppose it can be an interesting line of enquiry. You use words like 'ruse' or 'fraud' as if some multi-national conspiracy of scientists is working together to coerce mankind into something - what, I'm not clear on.

To have an opinion like that, you must have some reason to believe it, otherwise it's just irrational. So what is it? Can you give us a brief run down on the nature of this fraud and what it is supposed to achieve.

Have you had a look at any of those videos I linked to? I suspect not. I really think you should at least take a look at this one (there are three parts about 10 minutes each):

YouTube - How It All Ends: Nature of Science (pt 1 of 3)

[BobL]

Well, there is no debate eh! I guess its all done and dusted (NOT).


No - debate about whether its real or not will never be over - scientists are still looking (desperately) to see if there is way out. The debate about whether we should start to do something can continue but I don't think we can risk losing any more time and something should be done.
Every scientist would dearly love to say - hey I found this, and this and this and it points the other way. If they find it I am very keen to apply my crap detector to it and if necessary will change my mind.

I have changed my mind on such issues before. I used to be strongly anti-nuke, then after studying the issues in detail I changed my mind and became pro nuke, then, largely on economic grounds, I became less pro nuke, and now with 4th Generation reactor technology and threat of GW I'm swinging the other way again and reckon that nuclear has a significant contribution to make.

[astrid]

Sorry rod,
but I think it is neccessary in an intelectually honest debate to either defend an argument presented or withdraw it.
You cant say to yourself "Ill pretent I didnt present" when someone points out that there is strong reason to suspect your source is corrupt.

Astrid

[BobL]

:D:q

The peer review system you refer to is open so open to joint back slapping etc it is virtually usless as a way to gain credibillity.

Peer review is not a perfect system but like democracy - it's the best thing we have.

Here is a scholarly site by the American Institute of Physics on climate change (http://www.aip.org/history/climate/). It's a scientifically conservative site but is well set out and reasonably easy to read.

There have been many strong debates by scientists about climate forecasting models. In the early days 70's and early 80's the models were simplistic and variable. A majority pointed towards increases in global warming while a few even pointed to cooling. The various pundits chose the models that suited them and proceeded to tear into each others models for vested interest or other purposes. Gradually the most likely and realistic models surface and survived and developed, In the 90's the increasingly sophisticated models and improved computing power suddenly crystalized the direction of the models - they all started to point up. The next question was how much? Being Mr Conservatives most scientific groups chose modest changes and waited to things to happen.

In the last few years the small changes possible made within the last 10 year period by these ~15 (sometimes quite different) models have all been within the range predicted by scientists. What is concerning is that they are generally on the high side of the predictions. This could mean that the scientists are being too conservative and not providing enough warning. We could wait a bit longer but . . . . . . I better get my milling done before my CS is banned.

[rod@plasterbrok]

Sorry Silent the video did nothing for me!

Astird, SilentC, BobL, et al,

I have express my opinions here on this site in resopnse to the pro AGW argument I have not seen anything here that will change that opinion. Nor do I expect you to be swayed by my opinion as I cannot be swayed by yours.

The argument can go on forever still with neither side conceeding a point. I hope you are as wrong as I am sure you hope I am right. Then the world will be safe once again and we can stop playing God.

Cheers guys!

[dazzler]

Dazzler you can search the nett for yourself there are plenty out there.

The peer review system you refer to is open so open to joint back slapping etc it is virtually usless as a way to gain credibillity.

The fact is and you simply cannot deny it, is that there is not a single bit of scientific evidence that proves AGW not one paper peer reviewed or otherwise.

You can claim all you like the debate is over. It will never be over and the Scientific FACTS will win in the end.

Didnt think you could point to one. So all the medicines that are not released until the results have been peer reviewed are virtually useless.

But putting aside for one minute that you are unable to back up what you say lets look at it this way.

There are a lot of very very smart scientific people in the world who believe that global warming is a fact. There may be just as many very very smart scientific people that may disagree and say its a crock.

But....we only get one chance at this. If we are wrong then there are gunna be issues. They may be big or they may be small. You and I will be okay :), maybe more of our land may become marginal for farming so a few farmers may suffer and our food goes up at coles. No biggie.

But what if you are a farmer in a country like Benin in Africa where we sponsor a young boy. Last year it was hotter than normal and much of thier crops failed. They had enough millett to get them through. What if they have three or four years or it stays at 2deg warmer for good. Would thier 3 month old be able to live if mum doesnt get enough food.

Maybe they wont have anything to eat. Maybe they all die. A wee bit harder for them than us. And if global warming is true then its you, me and all the other rich (by global standards) spoilt brats that did it to them. And just to keep it in focus, we are very much the minority ( I did hear 12% but cant recall where or if its correct but lets at least agree that we are very much the minority) and through our excesses cause the deaths of billions by changing the climate.

And truly what is the worst that can happen if the world adopts a strategy to lower carbon output. The world is a little less polluted? Is that a bad thing? Yep, there may be some inconvenience, but I doubt any of us is walking 5k a day to get a bucket of dirty water to drink so I imagine we could handle a little.

You are right that there is a lot of rubbish out there about global warming. 100m rise what crap. But a 1m rise is just as bad if you live in bangladesh or an idyllic white atoll.

This is how i came to the conclusion that on the balance of probability we are doing something to our planet that isnt natural.

The world uses about 82 million barrells of crude oil a day. So 82 million barrels at 159 litres per barrel is a total of 13 038 000 000 litres of oil that is burnt every single day. And thats not even counting coal or gas!

Where does it all go? Into the atmosphere where we live.:C

Can that be good? Hell if I fart in the lounge room the place is polluted so how does 13 billions litres a day affect the world. I aint no scientist but I dont think its a good thing.

cheers

dazzler

[silentC]

The argument can go on forever still with neither side conceeding a point.
I'm not on 'a side'. You seem to have a very polarised view of things. Nobody is suggesting that we play God (how do we do that anyway?). What is being suggested is that we do something to try and help mitigate the effects (if any) of climate change.

You keep missing the point. You obviously have not taken in the guy's point in those videos. You are adamant that the 'pro-AGW argument' as you put it is bull. If you had taken in any of what he was trying to say, you would realise that you cannot say that, any more than a 'pro-AGW' person can say to you "this is what will happen". I'm sorry that you don't get that.

What you are doing is putting up a straw man argument so you can try to tear it down. You're saying "you pro-AGW people have no hard proof that global warming is anything other than a fraud". But no-one has ever said they had proof. That's the whole point. You can't prove anything, you can only disprove it. If you watched all three of those "Nature of Science" videos, you would understand that.

The whole point of the debate is, given we have a very large number of scientists and scientific organisations supporting the theory that global warming is taking place and that we can potentially do something about it, should we try. Your response is "I think it's all a fraud, so we should do nothing because nothing is going to happen". Forgive me if I put my faith in people who actually know what they are talking about and don't just base their opinions and therefore their actions on a gut feeling.

Did you watch the bit where he talks about the guy who wont admit he is wrong? That's the guy you sound like when you say "I have not seen anything here that will change that opinion. Nor do I expect you to be swayed by my opinion as I cannot be swayed by yours." Do you at least concede that you could be wrong? Or are you so sure of it that you are willing to stake your kids and grandkids futures on it? I wish I could be so certain about things.

[Big Shed]

Corn is far too water, fertilizer and energy hungry crop for making biofuels. You only get about twice the amount of energy out of that is put into a corn crop so its the wrong thing to use. Acacias grown in wind rows in between pastoral or grain is a much better way to go. No water needed, they survive and grow on very little natural precipitation. You get something like 4 times more energy from acacias - and you get some nice timber out of it as well.

10% of the arable land in Australia could provide all our biofuel. BUT we don't need to use arable land. We could use pastoral stations in the northern part of Australia. What we lack is infrastructure and investment incentives.

Bob, I agree with you, however that is not how ethanol is being produced is it?

Have a look at the number of relatively small ethanol plants in the US using corn/canola as feedstock.
Personally I find it obscene that people can take a foodstuff such as corn and canola and then use it to fuel their Jeep Cherokee or indeed Toyota Prius and let the poor people starve.
Your idea of using Acacias is a good one, on the surface, I haven't seen the science on it. Is it being used commercially, or is just "pie in the sky at present"?

[Big Shed]

G'day,

Regarding the Prius, it's all bulltish when you look at the figures of when the engine runs petrol of from the battery depending on speed and acceleration. I'll post up the stats when I find them.

Really it's a car for people who want/think to look good but the numbers don't stack up. Top Gear and others have dubunked it.

That's the reason I used the Toyota Prius as an example of well meaning people trying to do something for the environment. All it really is is a very clever marketing campaign by Toyota. There is plenty of info to be found on the web that give the facts.

The point I was making is, is that is very hard for well meaning people, and I hope that is the majority, to make decisions on what to buy and what to use without proper unbiased facts to look at.

I used the star system for energy and water use as an example, it works very well, even though it may be simplistic at times. Look at sales of front loading washing machines, they have sky rocketed largely because people were made aware of water efficient they are.

If the same information was given about, say plasma screens (admittedly one of my pet hates, so I'm biased), the sales of said plasma screens would plummet.

At the end of the day most people want the best for future generations, it is when the debate gets hi-jacked by hypocritical re-cycled politicians that the waters get muddied.

I happen to believe the scientists that are telling me there is global warming taking place. I also believe the scientists that are telling me this is part of a natural cycle have a more compelling argument than the scientists that tell me that it is entirely man-made.

Even Kevin07 is not prepared to risk the Australian economy on their science, yet.


He may have (symbolically) signed Kyoto, but that is as far as he is prepared to go.

[Gra]

Bob, I agree with you, however that is not how ethanol is being produced is it?

Thats how the US is producing it yea, and that is down to a lot of lobbying by the farmers to get subsidies to do it that way.

What Bob is suggesting is for how Australia could do it, as Australia doesn't currently have a biofuel market as such. The creation/growth of such a market would be driven by any govt subsidies. If the subsidies can go in the correct direction yes we could do it, but knowing how our political system works, the farmers federation would end up taking over the debate and we would end up in the same place as the US (I'm not cynical, I'm worse than that im resigned)

[silentC]

the scientists that tell me that it is entirely man-madeDo these people exist? I don't think anyone would really suggest that it's an entirely man-made phenomenon. If I had to 'pick a side' I'd say that assuming there is a problem, we aren't helping at all.


Even Kevin07 is not prepared to risk the Australian economy on their science, yet.You want to get into the motivations of politicians now? In any case, it shouldn't be a question of what Kevin Rudd is or is not prepared to do. It's not a decision that should be made by any one person, let alone a politician.

[Waldo]

That's the reason I used the Toyota Prius as an example of well meaning people trying to do something for the environment. All it really is is a very clever marketing campaign by Toyota. There is plenty of info to be found on the web that give the facts.

Even Kevin07 is not prepared to risk the Australian economy on their science, yet.


He may have (symbolically) signed Kyoto, but that is as far as he is prepared to go.

G'day Big Shed,

I agree with you, both on the Prius and Kev07.

Isn't it funny that after polling to the masses he realises that there is a cost associated to cutting emmisons down by x% - it's why the US has balked at a firm figure. (similarly too the way he isn't pulling out of Iraq yet until at least 2010. The truth of being in opposition is different to that of being in government)

[dazzler]

We don't have to kill our economy to tackle global warming. While some people see obstacles, I can certainly see opportunities. How you handle the challenges(or percieved challenges) ahead are depends on your own attititude towards life.

Spot on.

There is a world of opportunity to create a happy healthy and sustainable human population into the future.

We just need to grab it with both hands.

[BobL]

Bob, I agree with you, however that is not how ethanol is being produced is it?

Have a look at the number of relatively small ethanol plants in the US using corn/canola as feedstock.
Personally I find it obscene that people can take a foodstuff such as corn and canola and then use it to fuel their Jeep Cherokee or indeed Toyota Prius and let the poor people starve.
Your idea of using Acacias is a good one, on the surface, I haven't seen the science on it. Is it being used commercially, or is just "pie in the sky at present"?

I agree corn and canola have far more value as food and as feed stock and that is what it should do. We also should not be burning oil - oil has a far greater value as a chemical feedstock for making plastics etc. In 100 years time our great/great grandchildren will laugh at us for burning a substantial reservoir of our petrochemical reserves.

Acacias are the subject of a nation wide Commonwealth Research Centre Study. There are over 100 scientists and economists working on this. An advanced study has assessed the feasibility and a pilot plant is being constructed in South. West WA. There are around a dozen products that come out of the production loop depending on market forces including acacia oil (worth $9 litre to pharmaceutical industry), wood pellets, bio diesel, and nice acacia timbers. The cost of the diesel is dependent on the cost of special enzymes. which is where the research effort is a the moment.

Smart Biofuels (especially not palm oil, canola, or corn) are not THE answer but they appear to be part of the solution.

[Big Shed]

Do these people exist? I don't think anyone would really suggest that it's an entirely man-made phenomenon. If I had to 'pick a side' I'd say that assuming there is a problem, we aren't helping at all.


Silnetc, you can't have two bob each way, if it isn't man-made, then by definition there isn't much we can do about it.
I'm not saying we shouldn't try and stop pollution and use better energy sources, but if global warming isn't man made then that isn't going to help is it?




You want to get into the motivations of politicians now? In any case, it shouldn't be a question of what Kevin Rudd is or is not prepared to do. It's not a decision that should be made by any one person, let alone a politician.


I thought this whole debate was about the motivations of politicians!:rolleyes:

At the end of the day, they are the ones, for better or for worse, that are going to put the systems in place to fix this problem, who else, the scientists?

God help us all.


I'm not having a go at Kevin07 here, like Waldo said, he's just found out that reality doesn't match theory. It is one thing to snipe from the opposition benches, it is quite another to have to deal with the real world.

Welcome to the real world Kevin07.:rolleyes:

[Big Shed]

I agree corn and canola have far more value as food and as feed stock and that is what it should do. We also should not be burning oil - oil has a far greater value as a chemical feedstock for making plastics etc. In 100 years time our great/great grandchildren will laugh at us for burning a substantial reservoir of our petrochemical reserves.

Acacias are the subject of a nation wide Commonwealth Research Centre Study. There are over 100 scientists and economists working on this. An advanced study has assessed the feasibility and a pilot plant is being constructed in South. West WA. There are around a dozen products that come out of the production loop depending on market forces including acacia oil (worth $9 litre to pharmaceutical industry), wood pellets, bio diesel, and nice acacia timbers. The cost of the diesel is dependent on the cost of special enzymes. which is where the research effort is a the moment.

Smart Biofuels (especially not palm oil, canola, or corn) are not THE answer but they appear to be part of the solution.


Thanks for that Bob, do you have a link where I can read more about that, sounds like a very worthwhile project. Anything to produce biofuels, as long as we don't take food out of people's mouths.

[silentC]

if it isn't man-made, then by definition there isn't much we can do about it.Who told you that? There must be hundreds of examples of man-made solutions to natural problems.
If you're going to take that line, we might as well just join Rod and pretend it's not happening.

Part of the problem I think is that people believe we can stop a natural process - or think that's what people want to try to do. I don't think that's what is being suggested. We can do things to stop making it worse. We may even reverse things a little. But I think most of the effort needs to go into preparing for what's to come, not trying to stop it, because I don't know if we can.

But I am delving a little bit into an area that I should stay away from, because as I've tried to point out to Rod, the whole field is so complicated that there's no way you or I can be across and understand all of the issues and the science involved. I really do believe it is a matter of trusting the scientific community as a whole to come up with solutions. Where else are you going to put your faith?

If they are lying to us for some so far undisclosed motive, well what can we do. The alternative is to do nothing just in case they are lying. But what if they're not?

[BobL]

Even Kevin07 is not prepared to risk the Australian economy on their science, yet.


What I heard was that Kev will use the information to decide on what and how much should be done, not whether to do something or not.

I just came from lunch with a couple of atmospheric scientists where I heard the following. Last year a very large mining/oil company concerned about the possible cost of increasingly wilder weather resulting from global warming on the effects of mining and oil rigs, commissioned an expensive ($50 million) international study on wild weather in north west WA. The study was run forwards and backwards for a number of years. In backwards mode the model predicted past weather severity with very high accuracy. The good news is that the long terms forecast is that there will be a few less wild weather events per year - the bad news is that during the next 20 years all the wild weather events ratchet up one level. Are they sitting around and waiting to decide if this is going to happen - no sir-ee - they are the process of rejigging all their plant designs so that they can still get insurance coverage for this eventuality. Likewise farmers are not talking about it or deciding, they are getting on with it and wondering why the rest of us sit in our city comfort and do nothing.

[Gra]

This is why all the financial organizations are getting into weather derivatives.....

[Big Shed]

What I heard was that Kev will use the information to decide on what and how much should be done, not whether to do something or not.

I just came from lunch with a couple of atmospheric scientists where I heard the following. Last year a very large mining/oil company concerned about the possible cost of increasingly wilder weather resulting from global warming on the effects of mining and oil rigs, commissioned an expensive ($50 million) international study on wild weather in north west WA. The study was run forwards and backwards for a number of years. In backwards mode the model predicted past weather severity with very high accuracy. The good news is that the long terms forecast is that there will be a few less wild weather events per year - the bad news is that during the next 20 years all the wild weather events ratchet up one level. Are they sitting around and waiting to decide if this is going to happen - no sir-ee - they are the process of rejigging all their plant designs so that they can still get insurance coverage for this eventuality. Likewise farmers are not talking about it or deciding, they are getting on with it and wondering why the rest of us sit in our city comfort and do nothing.

Bob, isn't that what I said, Kevin is not prepared to do anything yet?

So, the oil & mining companies are preparing for a worst case scenario, prudent management practice.

Your last line confuses me a little, what are the farmers getting on with exactly? (apart from growing corn and canola for ethanol that is!)

I for one am not sitting in city comfort, I am actively involved in country life and probably have a reasonable understanding of farmers and their problems.
I have also planted more trees than I care to remember, both on my own property and on countless other properties. I, and my fellow Landcare members, actively collect seed, propagate trees and plant them as well as do lots of kilometers of direct seeding.
All this because I ignore the problem from my "city comfort", I don't think so!

And just for the record, I am not denigrating scientists or science (I might not have a PhD, but I do have a BSc, so not totally ignorant). I have also been involved with science and scientists long enough that I don't want to place my future, and the future of my children etc entirely in their hands.

[BobL]

Your last line confuses me a little, what are the farmers getting on with exactly? (apart from growing corn and canola for ethanol that is!)


Farmers are amongst the most climate savy people in Australia and world and the know the effects of changes only too well. Many farmers and farming organizations realize the value of and use short and long term climate science in their operations and are also using it in ever increasing levels of sophistication. They generally accept global warming and are looking to manage and even profit from ever changing opportunities out there on the land. My understanding is that farming organizations are well informed about various scenarios and are working on what they can do - after all the north of Oz is predicted to get wetter as well as hotter so faming may have to look further north than it has in the past

That mallee (not acacia) Biofuels info I looked for on the we sure ws tricky to track down but here is something that should get you started
http://crcleme.org.au/Pubs/PubsOther/FOS_June06.pdf

[BobL]

Your last line confuses me a little, what are the farmers getting on with exactly? (apart from growing corn and canola for ethanol that is!)

Farmers are amongst the most climate savy and practically scientific people on the planet. My dealing with Farming organizations is that they value and apply with increasing sophistication both short and long term scientific climate study results. My brief dealings with then is they accept climate change is here and get on with it and continually look for opportunities and to do what they can with what they have. Maybe we should be looking north as the predictions are it will get wetter and hotter.

Sorry I lumped you all in with the generic "us" city comfort people. I have a great deal of respect for country folk, having been one myself for 16 years.

In terms of Kev waiting, he used a term "Metrological" (in relation to the basis for making decisions about GW), which I'm sure 99% of people when they heard it, thought he said "Meteorological" - there is a serious difference between these two words (Google even thinks I mean Meteorological ) and gives me some confidence that whoever is advising him knows something about the right approach to this issue.

[Big Shed]

Thanks for the link to the mallee for biofuel Bob. I had actually already found it as your reference to acacias intrigued me. I have done a fair bit of reading in this area (not only junk science:D) and I was under the impression that both eucalypt and acacia created a problem where about 5o-60% of the energy produced as ethanol is used to get that ethanol. Not the most efficient way to get your energy, in contrast corn and canola sit around the 20%

One of the papers that discusses this is here (http://www.oilcrisis.com/patzek/CRPS416-Patzek-Web.pdf) if you are interested.

[Big Shed]

Who told you that? There must be hundreds of examples of man-made solutions to natural problems.
If you're going to take that line, we might as well just join Rod and pretend it's not happening.

Part of the problem I think is that people believe we can stop a natural process - or think that's what people want to try to do. I don't think that's what is being suggested. We can do things to stop making it worse. We may even reverse things a little. But I think most of the effort needs to go into preparing for what's to come, not trying to stop it, because I don't know if we can.

But I am delving a little bit into an area that I should stay away from, because as I've tried to point out to Rod, the whole field is so complicated that there's no way you or I can be across and understand all of the issues and the science involved. I really do believe it is a matter of trusting the scientific community as a whole to come up with solutions. Where else are you going to put your faith?

If they are lying to us for some so far undisclosed motive, well what can we do. The alternative is to do nothing just in case they are lying. But what if they're not?


Silentc, I find your confidence in scientists touching in its' naivety.:rolleyes:

Let me give you a small example of what scientists are capable of.

I live in a small valley in Central Victoria which was given over to soldier settlers in 1952. The rules governing these soldier settlement blocks were set, amongst other bureaucrats, by the scientists of the Dept of Agriculture. Part of these rules, and they were complex, was that the land had to be cleared at a certain rate, else it would be forefeited. Also, these agricultural scientists (most of them straight of the boat from England:o) would tell them how much superphosphate to apply to this cleared land every year. All this was based on "science". Perhaps you should look at some of these areas now, I'm sure it happened around your GPS reference.
What we have now in this valley is extremely high salinity, they didn't understand the importance of native vegetation on granite soils, land poisoned by superphosphate that won't grow anything commercially. Those same scientists have washed their hands of these poor farmers and accuse them of "poor land management".
Those scientists weren't lying, they were very sincere in their beliefs (facts even), problem was their beliefs were wrong!.

The result is that most of it has been broken up in smaller parcels and non-farmers, city slickers, tree changers if you will, have moved on these smaller parcels. These people are now re-generating the land totally mucked by "science", getting rid of all their non-native pasture grasses, re-vegetating the land, reducing salinity and basically re-establishing a viable eco-system. All this without help from scientists from DPI DNRE or CMA.

So, excuse me if I am rather cynical about science and scientific "solutions.
History is littered with scientific disasters.

[woodbe]

Wow.

I go away for a day, and look what happens :)

There's a mob working on solar power called Ausra, I heard about them here or someplace like here, that reckon they could supply the entire US Electricity demand, day and night, with a solar generating facility just 92 miles square:


"We would have to cover too much land with solar power plants."
Solar is one the most land-efficient sources of clean power we have, using a fraction of the area needed by hydro or wind projects of comparable output. All of America's needs for electric power – the entire US grid, night and day – can be generated with Ausra's current technology using a square parcel of land 92 miles on a side. For comparison, this is less than 1% of America's deserts, less land than currently in use in the U.S. for coal mines, and a tiny fraction of the land currently in agricultural use.

Why aren't we doing this? Are they liars or something?

http://www.ausra.com/

woodbe.

[silentC]

I find your confidence in scientists touching in its' naivety
Now don't go getting personal.

So who are you suggesting will come up with a solution? You? Rod? We really are in trouble if that's the case.

Also, bad decisions made in the past have nothing to do with decisions that are yet to be made. Do you say "well, last time I made a decision, it was the wrong one, so this time I'm not going to make one?" Hopefully they learned from their mistake so they make a better decision next time. I find your attitude that we should just dismiss them because they have been wrong in the past alarming and I'm glad it's not people who hold that view who are making the decisions. What about all the times they have got it right? Do you know anyone who has ever had a bypass, or a stent, or kidney dialysis or an appendectomy?

Have you bothered to take a look at those videos so that you know what you're arguing against? I doubt it. Watch some of them and then give us your appraisal. Explain to me how I'm being naively mislead by what appear to me to be logical and perfectly sound arguments. Tell me who is going to provide the solutions if not the nasty scientists.

All ears...

[Mickj]

Just off the coast of Fremantle they're trialling a "tidal" generator. It looks promising. Of course this solution is not going to help countries in central Europe is it?... but then as mentioned before, there is no silver bullet that is going to fix this problem.
There are 3 things Aus has got plenty of; Sunshine, Wind, and Coastline.
There has got to be a solution there to help the planet.

By the way, lets not cross the lines between fuel and feed, because feed will lose out everytime.

[Groggy]

Why do people keep ignoring the plain and simple fact we are overpopulating?

Can someone answer that? It does not matter how efficient we become, or how clean our fuels, unless we slow population growth, then reduce it, we are stuffed.

[Groggy]

As for personal attacks, they will be removed, so please keep on the topic/s.

[Big Shed]

Now don't go getting personal.

So who are you suggesting will come up with a solution? You? Rod? We really are in trouble if that's the case.



Ooh, don't go all sensitive on me now silentc. Who's getting personal now?:(

The expression about heat and kitchens springs to mind, perhaps you should re-read some of your posts to Rod?





Also, bad decisions made in the past have nothing to do with decisions that are yet to be made. Do you say "well, last time I made a decision, it was the wrong one, so this time I'm not going to make one?" Hopefully they learned from their mistake so they make a better decision next time. I find your attitude that we should just dismiss them because they have been wrong in the past alarming and I'm glad it's not people who hold that view who are making the decisions. What about all the times they have got it right? Do you know anyone who has ever had a bypass, or a stent, or kidney dialysis or an appendectomy?


Bad decisions in the past have no bearing, please! Yes, I do have 2 stents, yes I did ask my cardiologist what his success rate was before I let him touch me. So, if he told me he'd stuffed up a few, I should say, bad decisions in the past don't count, have another go you mug?



Have you bothered to take a look at those videos so that you know what you're arguing against? I doubt it. Watch some of them and then give us your appraisal.


You are making assumptions here, not very scientific...........





Explain to me how I'm being naively mislead by what appear to me to be logical and perfectly sound arguments. Tell me who is going to provide the solutions if not the nasty scientists.



You really are a past master at twisting people's words around to suit your own argument. Tell me where I said where you are being mislead (naively or otherwise) by logical and sound arguments. I merely stated, as you quoted above, that "I find you confidence in scientists touching in its' naivety"




All ears...




Tempting silentc, tempting.....................

[BobL]

Thanks for the link to the mallee for biofuel Bob. I had actually already found it as your reference to acacias intrigued me. I have done a fair bit of reading in this area (not only junk science:D) and I was under the impression that both eucalypt and acacia created a problem where about 5o-60% of the energy produced as ethanol is used to get that ethanol. Not the most efficient way to get your energy, in contrast corn and canola sit around the 20%

One of the papers that discusses this is here (http://www.oilcrisis.com/patzek/CRPS416-Patzek-Web.pdf) if you are interested.

Yes that is a very interesting paper and agree that using today's technology - a lot of energy is needed to get energy out of eucalypt/mallee. The immediate difference is you don't need to use prime farming real estate or bucket loads of water to grow the crop. There is an anti-biofuels argument going around that eucalypts need a lot of water. Some do but many can grow on very little and what's more appealing still is that certain types can grow in brakkish/salty water. A lot of research is going into identifying the best type of mallee for specific conditions.

My understanding is that there are new (currently expensive) enzymes that can extract the energy from mallee to 8X the input energy . Research is needed to bring the enzyme cost down.

I may sound like a fan of biofuels but only see them as a minor player for use by trucks, planes and heavy equipment - every otehr short haul vehicle should be electric or H2 based.

Cheers

[Big Shed]

Thanks Bob, interesting.

I think we all have our own hobby horse re alternative energy sources. One of my favoutites and one that is sadly underexploited in OZ is geothermal energy. Not only the systems where you pump water down a hole in the earth on to hot rocks and the generated steam drives a turbine, but also the "backyard" systems with buried pipes and heat exchangers for heating and cooling houses. Much more popular in the States than here.

[BobL]

There's a mob working on solar power called Ausra, I heard about them here or someplace like here, that reckon they could supply the entire US Electricity demand, day and night, with a solar generating facility just 92 miles square:
Why aren't we doing this? Are they liars or something?


Ah, er, hum what about in winter and wot about at night time??? doesn't matter how big your solar collector is then. That's not to say we shouldn't do solar - of course we should, but the return time on investment is currently beyond our small short term money making mind. Oz has some great solar cell technology, see these (http://www.originenergy.com.au/1233/SLIVER-technology) flexible solar cells that could be used on the curved outsides of motor vehicles

Neither Solar energy nor Hydro are also not CO2 free. Hydro needs huge dams which uses concrete which emits more CO2. Mining and processing PV films also makes CO2.

[woodbe]

You didn't read the site, did you Bob? :)


"Solar energy only works in the daytime, and it can't provide the reliable power we need."
Solar thermal power plants can store energy during daylight hours and generate power when it's needed. Ausra's power plants collect the sun's energy as heat; Ausra is developing thermal energy storage systems which can store enough heat to run the power plant for up to 20 hours during dark or cloudy periods. To learn more about how Ausra's plants store energy, click here (http://www.ausra.com/technology/).

woodbe.

[Big Shed]

Not long on detail is it woodbe, but sounds interesting.

[woodbe]

Yea, they're not exactly forthcoming, but it looks like they have some plants in service, which is something. Dunno if they do the day/night thing though.

Winter is no much of a problem in the desert. It's usually the best time of year, and loads of sunshine, Bob. Ask anyone from Death Valley :) or anywhere between Port Augusta and north of Alice...

woodbe.

[Big Shed]

woodbe, most of these alternative energy sources are fine for "top-up" power but not base load. That's where nuclear has an advantage and so does geothermal. They are doing trials in the Cooper Basin (GeoDynamics (http://www.geodynamics.com.au/IRM/content/home.html)) but have struck problems with the drilling technology to get down to the hot rocks.

Like everything else, it sounds fantastic, almost a closed loop, pump the water down on the hot rocks, capture the steam through turbines, generate electricity, collect the water, pump on to hot rocks...................

[woodbe]

I hadn't heard they had struck problems with the drilling. bugga.

That's what caught my attention with the Ausra mob. They are talking base load, in fact, they are talking about the complete US day and night load coming from their solar-thermo plant. It sounds amazing but is it really possible?

woodbe.

[dazzler]

Why do people keep ignoring the plain and simple fact we are overpopulating?

Can someone answer that? It does not matter how efficient we become, or how clean our fuels, unless we slow population growth, then reduce it, we are stuffed.

Cause its too hard. And there are too many catholics :p :p :p :wink:

But you are correct. Overpopulation will screw us

[BobL]

Thanks Bob, interesting.

I think we all have our own hobby horse re alternative energy sources. One of my favoutites and one that is sadly underexploited in OZ is geothermal energy. Not only the systems where you pump water down a hole in the earth on to hot rocks and the generated steam drives a turbine, but also the "backyard" systems with buried pipes and heat exchangers for heating and cooling houses. Much more popular in the States than here.

Here's a cool (http://www.gdc.asn.au/aboutus_aigo.php) one that uses your idea.

[rod@plasterbrok]

.
If you're going to take that line, we might as well just join Rod and pretend it's not happening.



No Silent C I just don't agree that the science has proved or even close to proving that its man made.

I also dont agree that science has proved that it will be as bad as they make out.

I also don't agree with the alarmist views of the ramifications of Global Warming.

I agree the globe as warmed by a total of .7 deg this century. I also note that it has not increased since 1998.

I just dont pretend that we are looking at doomsday like you guys want to believe.

History is full of examples of this kind of scaremongering that never come to pass. Chicken Little springs to mind!

[silentC]

The expression about heat and kitchens springs to mind
I can take any heat you want to dish out mate but if you want to start pushing my buttons by calling me naive, expect me to get irritated.


Bad decisions in the past have no bearing, please!
What you are saying is that because some scientists have been wrong in the past, we shouldn't trust any of them to be right in the future.

What I want to know is who you think is going to come up with solutions to problems in the future if we are like you and have a distrust of scientists? Who is the better option?


Tempting silentc, tempting.
Don't hold back on my account. If you've got something to say, say it.

[silentC]

Chicken Little springs to mind!
Umm, I hate to tell you this, but Chicken Little is a children's fairy tale, not a real event.


I just dont pretend that we are looking at doomsday like you guys want to believe.

You are still characterising the debate as being between people who think the world is going to end and people who don't. I don't believe the world is going to end. I happen to be a recent convert to the 'risk management' way of thinking, which says that there MAY be something bad coming, because respected scientists are telling us there is, and we should be prepared for it. I think that is a very logical attitude to hold.

If you want to challenge that way of thinking, do so. But please stop telling me the sky is not falling because I'm not saying that it is.

[silentC]

I just want to summarise the points of disagreement, because it's getting lost in a slanging match:

Big Shed: Your first post yesterday was a link to what you called 'facts rather than melodramatic hype'. That suggests that you believe there isn't anything much to worry about. You also say you believe the scientists who tell you that global warming is taking place but you don't believe the ones who say it is man made. You say that if people like Al Gore "walked the talk" you would take "this whole argument a bit more seriously" (note you said "this whole argument" not "his argument"). You say that if global warming is man made, then there is nothing we can do about it. You are cynical towards the ability of science to solve any problems and believe they will most likely stuff it up.

So here are my questions to you:
1. What basis do you use to decide which scientists you believe? Have you heard of confirmation bias, and do you agree that you might be susceptible to it?

2. Given you believe that global warming is taking place, there's nothing we can do to stop it, and assuming you think it is a bad thing, who do you believe is best able to take any action that needs to be taken to prepare for it? What part, if any, should science play in this?

3. If Al Gore moved from his mansion to a small house with solar power and stopped catching aeroplanes, would you change your views on any of this?

Rod: You say that the whole climate change debate is a fraud. Nothing is happening, nothing is going to happen. You believe this because you have seen no proof. Nothing anyone has said to you would convince you that the Earth's climate is changing or is going to change and so we should just carry on as usual.

My questions to you:

1. What is the purpose of this fraud? Who benefits from it?

2. How do you decide what arguments to believe? Do you concede that you could be wrong about it?

3. Do you think there is any possibility that what we have been doing for the last 200 years might have caused some long term problems?

[Sebastiaan56]

Hi C,

We've been here before mate. This debate goes on and the deniers keep on denying, no amount of documented evidence or scientific concensus will change it. There is still a flat earth society. I think its OK to be sceptical. But I do think its stupid to adopt the head in the sand approach. If your cars brakes were playing up you'd get it fixed wouldnt you?, even if you hadnt crashed yet? Its called risk management.

For the naysayers, base load can be resolved with high temperature solutions that can be stored. These can be heated by solar, geothermal etc. Another opportunity for coastal dwellers is tidal power. There are plenty of solutions. Way back in the 70's Buckminster Fuller proposed that a big integrated grids would level supply and demand across continents. Another solution is to use less power.

Unfortunately, climate change is only one issue. Overpopulation (get the snip when you're done), loss of biodiversity (up to 30% of all species will disappear this century), loss of biomass (90% of the large sea critters are already gone), and pollution (ever wondered what happens to the unmetabolised drugs that you pee, eg antibiotics) must also be addressed.

These issues can only be really addressed by governments forcing mass behaviour change. The best way is by incentives, eg Germany is now leading in solar. Disincentives eg Carbon Trading will have a role as well.

Sebastiaan

[silentC]

I agree that governments have to drive it (and in turn we should drive them) but we have to rely on science and scientists to tell us where to best focus the efforts. I just don't know what alternative there is.

My main concern here though is this attitude people seem to have that they can understand the science well enough to cherry pick the arguments. I have no hope of ever understanding all the complexities of climate change. It's far too late for me to start and I don't have the keen interest in it that would be required. How can anybody who is not an expert in that field decide which arguments to believe, other than on some sort of gut feeling?

This is why I mentioned confirmation bias. The only way I can see that you could support some arguments and reject others, unless you have a deep understanding of the subject, is through a preconception of the truth. You seek out arguments that support your preconception (and people do this subconsciously, so it's not a criticism) and avoid or dismiss arguments that don't.

I think if I can get one of these guys to concede that it's possible they have it wrong - even to themselves, then I have done what I set out to do. That's all. I'm not trying to convert anyone - it's a waste of time and to be honest, I don't really think it matters what they believe, as long as enough people are stirred into action.

[rod@plasterbrok]

Rod: You say that the whole climate change debate is a fraud. Nothing is happening, nothing is going to happen. You believe this because you have seen no proof. Nothing anyone has said to you would convince you that the Earth's climate is changing or is going to change and so we should just carry on as usual.

My questions to you:

1. What is the purpose of this fraud? Who benefits from it?

2. How do you decide what arguments to believe? Do you concede that you could be wrong about it?

3. Do you think there is any possibility that what we have been doing for the last 200 years might have caused some long term problems?

Ok SilentC for a start I don't dissagree that there has been some Global warming over the past 100 years (I have already stated that). What I believe is that the effects and the cause have been grossly exagerated to cause pannic to dirive home the green mantra.

I also believe that the belief in Global warming has been hijacked by the UN as a mean to redistribute wealth to developing countries from developed countries. Why else would developing countries be allowed to continue to increase emissions at the expense of developed countries. Why are developed countries forced to pay a fine to undeveloped countries to buy carbon credits that will not solve the problem if it exists.

Please at lease include China nad India

I have an issue with the fact Australia only contributes a minor portion of world emissions yet could be forced to reduce living standards here for what purpose? Can anyone say how much a 60% cut in our emissions will reduce Global Temperature?

I believe that extremists have hijacked the GW debate and by making outlandish and false claims have discredited the scientific process which cast doubt on the validity of any claims. Requiring that all claims need to be carefully analyised before conclusions are made. It is a well known fact that the whole AGW debate is based on theories and not scientific facts. it is a matter of do you believe the theory or not based on probabilities. In my view they have not made a clear cut case that can be believed without question. Yet they will have you believe the debate is over.

There are many logical arguments about that discredit the AGW theory. The British court debunked 11 claims made by Al Gore in his film. There are many scientific concerns regarding the validity of the data used to form the computer models that forms a large part of the AGW mantra. The hockey stick model was discredited. The temperatures used were incorrect and later quietly corrected by Nassa. Claims the Antartic ice is reducing is false. So many false and blatant lies have been told to try and convince people that the AGW theory is in fact a fact.

On the balance of scientifc evidence I have read I simply cannot bring myself to follow the herd. If there was not such a hysterical push based of so many untruths and exaggerations I might be more apt to be a little more sympathetic. But my Bull S*** radar goes off when I see people making ridiculous claims about AGW.

The world temperatures have gone up by point 7 Deg's in 100 years the fear factor was that temps would increace 3 to 4 deg within 20 years based on the infamous hockey stick graph. That graph has been discredtited and is false. Since 1998 the temps have not increaced and yet people are declaring that they have. There are just so many holes in the AGW theory.

I really believe that the world will heat and cool quite naturally and that regardless of what we do it will not change. The Sun has the biggest influence on our temperatures by a huge factor therfore it is more logical that any minor change in the suns out put due to many reasons, would have more influence over world temps. I believe that there is evidence of this being the main factor behind Global temp change both now and in the past.

What would sway me?

Well conclusive scientific evidence that reducing Co2 emissions WILL not MAY reduce global temperatures.

Now I don't expect you to agree on anything I have posted Nor will anything you post in reply alter my opinion as it is based on the balance of information I have read, of which arguments you pose form a part of that information.

You have asked for my reasoning and now you have it. I don't discredit you for your opinion although I don't agree with it. So I do not expect to be discredited for mine.

Nor am I going to get into a prove this prove that argument, everything I have mentioned can be found on the web. I don't propose to be an expert on anything to do with AGW.

I have simply looked at all the facts from both sides, (as there is definitly a contrary view), then made my own assesment based on probabilities of who is more likely to be right or wrong. In the end it matters little to anyone other than myself what I think or in fact what you think.

I will continue to be careful that I keep my own emissions low without be excessive or paranoid about it, simply because I agree that less polution is better. I will continue to encourage alternative fuel simply because it is the right thing to do long term for future generations. No way will I "sell the farm" over this.

BTW I do realize chicken little is a fairy tale :wink:

[silentC]

On the balance of scientifc evidence I have read I simply cannot bring myself to follow the herd. If there was not such a hysterical push based of so many untruths and exaggerations I might be more apt to be a little more sympathetic. But my Bull S*** radar goes off when I see people making ridiculous claims about AGW.
This is the bit I'm interested in. Again, I want to know how a casual reader of published scientific information can determine whether or not it is BS without an in-depth understanding of the subject?

It also seems to me that taking this line of "if there weren't so many ridiculous claims being made, I'd be more inclined to believe it" is illogical. Does the fact that so many people rave on about how wonderful Shane Warne was as a bowler change the fact that he was, indeed, one of the best bowlers of all time? People dislike him in part because of the hype, but it does not change the fact that you'd want him on your team.

How do other people's opinions or the way they express them change the facts, and so therefore why does it influence your own thinking? It's the same with Big Shed's comment concerning Al Gore. I find it strange, that's all. Do you make your mind up about a thing based on the hype or strong criticism of others, or do you make up your own mind?

Do you believe that there is a consensus amongst scientists that there is a global warming problem and that it is caused by man? You don't have to believe that they are right, but do you accept that this is the case? Do you accept that you, despite all your reading on the subject, might have it wrong?

Have a look here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change) for a summary of the scientific opinions on the subject.

[rod@plasterbrok]

Boy I'm getting done with this!

There are 2 parts to the comment you highlight.

1)Scientific evidence.
2)Defence of the evidence.

The pro AGW scientific evidence is a theory only not proven facts. For me to agree to this theory based on the scientific evidence I need to form an opinion as to the validity of the theory.

2) Many of those who defend the theory do so by making outlandish claims that the qualify with words such as, can, might, may, could. If the claim is made in a positive tone it is pre-qualified with, "if this happens, then...... might happen"
Claims like, the Artic ice will be gone in 5 years. Polar bears will be extinct, sea levels will rise by 100m (Flannery), houses falling into the swan river, on and on and on they go, without a shred of proof. Most of these claims made by NON SCIENTIST simply to validate what can only be descibed as a scientific theory.

Now why does a scientific theory need all that hype to back it up?

The true scientific assessments of damage casused by AGW are nothing like the claims being made by non scientific people.

Therefore if you cut away the hype and simply look at the actual scientific facts from both sides you can quite reasonably form an opinion such as mine.

The very fact these outlandish claims are made begs you to investigate the facts.
For this reason alone I started to try and form an opinion based on facts not hype.

No i don't believe there is a consensus amongst scientist. That is also hyped up. Simply because so many scientist are comming out and saying so.
And no I dont need to name them, use google.
No I don't believe anyone has the ability to claim that they are right although they are entiltled to their opinion. Science is not done by consensus Science is based on fact, and theories are open to challange until facts are produced to either prove or disprove it.

So no I do not believe that despite all my reading that I might have it wrong. I stand by to change my opinion if and when the scientific evidence and facts are definite and not beat up by lobbyist.

Until then I will remain open minded and continue to read up on the subject. If I find a defining piece of literature that changes my mind this blog will be the first to know.

[Gra]

guys.

I have to say well done on this thread. It has been the best read for a long time :2tsup:

[rod@plasterbrok]

Yes it has been a good debate!

[silentC]

No i don't believe there is a consensus amongst scientist.
But there is a consensus amongst scientists working for or within the organisations listed at that link. In as much as there ever is a consensus amongst scientists, we have it. It's not hype. Hype is "the sea levels will rise by 100m. Millions of people will lose their homes. The world economy will collapse". These are worst case scenarios. It's good practice in risk management to consider the worst case. Doesn't mean you believe it will happen. You assign a probability to it and then base your actions on that. Do you accept there is a probability, no matter how slight, that the things scientists are warning us about might actually occur?


no I do not believe that despite all my reading that I might have it wrong

Until then I will remain open minded

How can you say you are open minded and still be convinced you can't be wrong? If you are open minded you must concede that you could be wrong, otherwise your mind is closed.


Most of these claims made by NON SCIENTIST simply to validate what can only be descibed as a scientific theory.
Why would you pay any attention to non-scientists making such claims?

What I'm suggesting is that you don't have the necessary background to interpret the scientific evidence (neither do I). You form your opinion based on your own preconceptions. This goes to the very nature of belief.

If these guys are right, and no-one, not you nor I nor Big Shed nor anyone else, can say that they are not right, then we have a big problem on our hands. I think it needs to be considered as a real possibility, not dismissed out of hand because of the hard line nutters who cling to it, or because some of the proponents are hypocrites.


Boy I'm getting done with this!
Fell free to taper off any time you like, I'm an argumentative sod and I'll bang on all day. I wont hold it against you and I'll still respect your advice elsewhere on the forum :)

[rod@plasterbrok]

Hmm I don't need to lay an egg to know one is bad.

[dazzler]

Nor am I going to get into a prove this prove that argument, everything I have mentioned can be found on the web. I don't propose to be an expert on anything to do with AGW.



And that is why you got slammed.....make a statement - back it up :)

[silentC]

Hmm I don't need to lay an egg to know one is bad.
No but you would need to know something about poultry to know why the chicken stopped laying them.

[rod@plasterbrok]

I believe that for the want of further evidence that my opinion is the right one to have. That does not mean that my opinion is correct, it means that I believe it to be.

Having an open mind means that I am open to change MY opinion if and when the facts are presented to alter it.

This means that I am open to assess both sides of the subject and not discard information for the sake that my mind is made up.

Science is simply not decided by consensus irespective of how many agree, it only takes one scientist to discover an irrefutable fact to blow any consensus out of the water. While ever there is no clear cut scientific fact to back up a theory backed by consensus it is open to be blown out of the water.

Consensus is in itself open to so many interpretations and false claims. Therefore I am very comfortable to devalue this claim in my assesment (which afterall is irrelevant, my assesment that is)

I don't need to back up any statement I make afterall it is just my opinion. You can easily validate my statement if you wish. I don't consider myself slammed either LOL.

I guess I'm just as stubborn SilentC :)

[woodbe]

I'll agree with Rod on one thing. There is a lot of Hype that has been thrown into the argument. I think it has been thrown into both sides though, Rod.

I think where people come unstuck with this whole debate, is that they are looking for facts to believe in, that will convince them one way or another. The problem is that by the time the facts are in, it will be too late. Think of the sea-level rise. All we have are theories about how much it will rise. The only facts we have are historical.

Personally, I've watched a lot of people get shouted down about man's impact on this planet for about the last 40 years. No-one wants to believe it, I know I don't. But, the signs are there, and scientific people are lining up very strongly on the side that says man is impacting the planet, and we better do something about it.

Regardless of what I might believe, I really don't think arguing against these scientific theories is a good plan. One of the facts we do have, is that a very significant proportion of the world's scientists studying climate have put their collective hands up and said "it's happening" If there is the slightest chance that they are right, then we should be actively doing something about it. Now.

woodbe.

[Mickj]

When I was in High school, back in the 80's, we were taught, "The Atomic Theory"....yes thats right. Despite our use of atomic weapons and nuclear reactors, it was still a theory.

How does something go from "Theorys" to "Rules" ???
I guess you have to convince a lot people...............

[dazzler]

And no I dont need to name them, use google.


So no I do not believe that despite all my reading that I might have it wrong. I stand by to change my opinion if and when the scientific evidence and facts are definite and not beat up by lobbyist.



But if you've done all this reading then you must know where it is?.

At least help a poor fella out and give us a link, a name, a hunch?

Hell, once we've read it we might agree with you :2tsup:.

Apart from my gut feeling that all the carbon in the atmosphere is not good for us (and I cant prove it so its worth little) I base my conclusions that we should do something from this site;

http://www.ipcc.ch/

cheers

dazzler

[woodbe]

It's science. Everything is a theory until a better theory is found. There are no absolutes, like those we deal with in everyday life.

We can dismiss the theories as just theories, and we'd be correct. What we cannot do is dismiss them as wrong unless we can disprove the theory or present another theory that is a better fit to the data.

Of course, dismissing a theory because it's just a theory might not be so smart when the bulk of the worlds scientific community reckon there is a good chance that the theory in question fits the data, and may well be right.

Reminds me of a story about a some codger called Nero. Maybe he thought that 'Rome burning' was 'just a theory'

woodbe.

[silentC]

While ever there is no clear cut scientific fact to back up a theory backed by consensus it is open to be blown out of the water.
Exactly! Thank you for making my point so eloquently. So the theory you support is that the global warming evidence we are seeing today is caused by natural processes, not by man, and that there is nothing we can do about it. Until you have conclusive proof, it remains a theory. So you have chosen this theory on the basis of your preconceptions of the truth, because there is no conclusive evidence for you to do it any other way. On the balance of probability, you believe it is most likely that global warming is a natural phenomenon, therefore you accept those arguments which support this belief and reject those which do not.


I believe that for the want of further evidence that my opinion is the right one to have. That does not mean that my opinion is correct, it means that I believe it to be.
You said "I do not believe that despite all my reading that I might have it wrong". This is different to what you have just said. You are now saying that you believe your opinion to be the right one to have given the available evidence (as assessed by you as a lay person), but you are not asserting that your opinion is correct. So reading between the lines, you concede that it is possible you are wrong. There is a probability, no matter how small (in your view), that global warming is going to be a major problem. Will you concede that much?

Here's another question: assuming you (or the scientists you follow) are right, and global warming is just part of a natural cycle, not influenced by man and not able to be altered by our actions in any way. So this natural process is taking place beyond our control and it might affect our well being. Do you think there's anything we could do in advance to prepare for it, or should we just put our faith in God or mother nature to work it all out in the end? Is your proposed strategy to just carry on as we are, or do you think it's worth taking some steps to alleviate the problem?

[silentC]

BTW, the reason I am arguing this point with you is because that's exactly how I felt about it 6 months ago. I remember saying to my wife "I've heard that global warming is supposedly caused by man now. What a load of bollocks - climate change is just part of the natural cycle". She nodded her head in agreement. But then after a bit of reading and thinking, I realised that is not a supportable point of view because a) I know bugger all about the natural cycles of the planet and b) scientists who do are saying that it might be caused by man and c) because it was hard for me to accept that things wont just carry on as they have been all of my life. Once you leave your baggage at the door, it becomes easier to accept the range of possibilities. I still have my private optimistic views and I hope that things aren't going to get as bad as some think - but I'm now less adamant about it and I accept that there is a distinct possibility that things might take a turn for the worst in my lifetime.

[rod@plasterbrok]

SilentC, Dazzler, Woodbe etc.

I am now about done I have explained my views as clear as I know how.

Like I said I do not expect you to agree with them. SilentC even though you say you can't understand why I have the view I do, I would say, I do understand why you and many others have your view.

What is important here is that there are opposing views even if you don't agree?

As custodians of the future we all must be held accountable to future generations who indeed will know the facts. That accountability is not just enviromental but econonomic, living standards, political stability and many others.

It is important that we act responsibly. That responsibility means correct interpretation on balance of the scientific evidence available and act accordingly. Its my view that I really dont see that happening. I see a lot of contradictory evidence where one side of that evidece is being shoved under the mat based on weight of opinion largely from many non scientists (the hype). Considering the public opinion that has been generated, it is a brave scientist that puts his hand up and says "hang on a minute", fortunately they are out there and growing.

I don't disagree with taking steps to improve the environment, cut polution and find better fuels. What I have exception to is the radical pace and urgency that is placed on doing so, based on all the arguments in the posts above and the damage that can do. The potential is here for massive political and inter country divide as one acts where another does not, such is the imbedded beliefs and lack of transparency to both sides of the scientific quandary.

The right descisions will be made in the long run I am sure.

You should hope like hell I am right don't you think?

I certainly hope like hell you are wrong!!!

[rod@plasterbrok]

SilentC,

I do fully support the fact that GW in a natural event and that we should be prepared for any real changes that may bring.

Given the temps have risen .07 deg in one hundred years and no evidence of a rapid increase as yet, we need not pannic about it.

BTW nice twist
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER- 1px inset; BORDER- 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">I believe that for the want of further evidence that my opinion is the right one to have. That does not mean that my opinion is correct, it means that I believe it to be. </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>You said "I do not believe that despite all my reading that I might have it wrong". This is different to what you have just said. You are now saying that you believe your opinion to be the right one to have given the available evidence (as assessed by you as a lay person), but you are not asserting that your opinion is correct. So reading between the lines, you concede that it is possible you are wrong. There is a probability, no matter how small (in your view), that global warming is going to be a major problem. Will you concede that much?

Considering I was simply expanding on my views to counter your previous twist confirming how I see it. My consessions are quite clear in my opinion as expressed.

[woodbe]

Considering the public opinion that has been generated, it is a brave scientist that puts his hand up and says "hang on a minute", fortunately they are out there and growing.


Rod, that is exactly the position of the minority proGW scientists a few short years ago.

What we have witnessed is a complete about-face by the scientific community and the community in general. That alone should be enough for most people to start paying attention.

The scientists arguing against GW are the leftovers of the old guard, not the arriving new guard. There are plenty of $$ reasons why they are becoming more vocal.

woodbe.

[Sebastiaan56]

I accept that there is a distinct possibility that things might take a turn for the worst in my lifetime.

I agree Rod, that future generations will judge us for better or worse. I also agree with C in that environmentally based conflicts are predicted and mass displacement is probably inevitable, Im glad I live on an island in one nation. It is critical that we make the correct decisions because the balance of probability is that they will. I also agree that there is a lot of unsubstantiated hype on both sides. But lets not let creationists tell us what is going on.

There is only one world forum, it has to be the mediating authority and it has set up a group of the best and brightest it can find to advise it. This is only what smart leaders do as we cant all know everything. When Bush steps down the next US president will have a much different line on the whole issue. I expect a lot of the "contrarian" polemic to be disbanded as the funding returns to science in the US.

I think the scientific process is working in bodies like the IPCC the revision of the NASA climate figures is another example. BTW when revised the decade was the second hottest on record by 0.2C so that argument is at best pedantry.

Sebastiaan

[silentC]

I certainly hope like hell you are wrong!!!
The irony is, I can't be wrong because I'm not really saying anything at all :)

The only thing I can actually be wrong about is whether or not we should take a risk management approach. Given that I can't know who is right and who is wrong (and neither can you, despite what you say) and given that an awful lot of people and organisations in a position to make educated observations say there is a problem, despite the fact that a lot of the same say there is no problem, I can't see how we can ignore the warnings and do nothing.

An example was given: there was outrage in the US when it was revealed that the FBI had all the information necessary to stop the 911 attacks - yet no-one managed to connect the dots. Imagine if, in 20 years time some of this stuff actually does happen, when people look back at this debate and nothing was done because no-one could agree whether there really was going to be a problem. How will we feel (those of us who are still around). If only we'd done something while there was still time.

I admit there is every chance that it will never happen - we just don't know. So the question remains, do we ignore the warnings because our gut feel is that nothing is going to happen? Or do we heed them just in case they are right. Seems like an easy decision to me.

I do understand why you have the views you do. I totally understand. I know exactly where you're at. You're no fool, and neither am I. I can see we're not going to get anywhere, but even if it makes you challenge your views on it, well that's something. If it makes them stronger, well and good. That's what it's all about. I'm just not so certain about things as you seem to be. It's so complex and the deeper you dig, the more complex it gets. The whole notion of what the Earth is, where we are and how we came to be here is so mind-bogglingly complex I can't even begin to understand it. Things are connected and interrelated in ways we will probably never understand. Someone is raising the alarm and I think it needs to be acted on, that's all.

[Gingermick]

http://forums.wingchun.com.au/images/smilies/playingball.gif (http://forums.wingchun.com.au/#)

[q9]

It also seems to me that taking this line of "if there weren't so many ridiculous claims being made, I'd be more inclined to believe it" is illogical.

This is an interesting point. Did you know, that for around 15-20 years or so, the degradation of the ozone layer was ignored because the numbers collected by the satellites were thought to be in error?

In fact, it turned out that the readings were actually quite accurate, just poorly interpreted because they were thought "ridiculous" and thus ignored.

[rod@plasterbrok]

No problem with that Silent C.

We just need to act sensibly, in a way that is not going to create economic storms and pannic one nation against another when one does not live up to expectations.

I guess what I am about is that everyone should take a cold shower so to speak. Somewhere in between what is "demanded action" and the "do nothing" approach is the right way to go. Until it is proven that C02 is the actual cause of the .7 deg increase thus far and that further increases have been observed.

If in fact AGW is true and the only way to combat it is to reduce emssions, then the only answer to that is for the world to have a NETT reduction in emissions.

Having developed countries reduce their emissions by 60% whilst the combined increase in the under developed countries rise by an amount that gives the world a nett increase in emissions is preposterous. The only result from that is a transfer in prosperity.

This is how Kyoto will pan out with the direction it is heading. No wonder Rudd is hanging back and the US flatly refused to play ball. Buying a carbon credit does not reduces carbon!

[MICKYG]

Hi all,

There would be many areas which could be improved but it is unlikely that every one would agree, I have always been conservative with most matters but find a lot of hypocrisy:((:((:(( attached to this particular subject.

How about some constructive ideas and improvements :):):)which communities could put into place. This is an area where everyone is entitled to an opinion and it should stay that way.:doh::doh:

Regards Mike

[rod@plasterbrok]

G9 that does not make the ridiculous claims by some proponents of AGW correct.

Many of their claims have been watered down by the IPPC itself.

11 of the claims by Gore were disputed in court and proved baseless.

Just look at the houses falling into the swan river claim made here today! How can that be anything but a ploy to incite fear or irrational action or belief.

There is no basis even by the IPPC's worst case scenario for that claim to have any credibility.

Having to sort through that sort of rubbish to find the facts simply muddies the water.

[q9]

I think you are hitting on something very important. The amount of deliberate misinformation being fed through, only serves to create a feeling of apathy and "This is BS" among the general population. Which leads to inaction, and more of the same.

I attended a conference last month in which a couple of industry leaders (agriculture), scientists, and a member of a Banking organisation no less, all were very clear - whatever your views, something is happening that we don't fully understand so we are best to deal with it, than not.

My understanding of the carbon credits scheme is that it reduces the amount of carbon credits by a certain amount each year, which gives the desired overall reduction. So if a country can't afford the technology to reduce carbon, they buy more credits, and countries that can afford to develop the technology can sell their credits. It is the application of simple economic principles of supply and demand to the problem. At some point the credits will be in very short supply, and therefore expensive, probably more expensive than the alternatives, thereby creating the incentive to move to better technologies.

To me, the downsides to acting on it early, regardless of whether you "believe" in it or not, are far smaller than the downsides to inaction.

[rod@plasterbrok]

G9 I hear what you are saying but really what action are you talking about.

The, "we demand drastic action now", type or, "we should be looking for alternatives" type, or maybe something in between.

Have you considered the results of the action you propose?

Like, what net effect will it have on the emissions world wide V's the cost?

What nett effect will it have on global temperatures next year next decade etc?

Will the action Australia takes be real and cut into the essense of AGW or by symbollic?

No action, given the world wide beliefs, would simply not be acceptable regardless of the futility, cost, or reality of AGW. This I agree.

[Greg Ward]

My facetious note of around 50 posts ago needs to resurface.

I find it extremely interesting (statistically speaking), that now that the Howard Govt has gone, that all the left wing in our nation are suffering from deprivation syndrome.

Lord only knows, they need something to whinge about, that's why they exist..... and they appear to be struggling to find a new cause for their incipient need to worry.

So now we've got one. GW to their rescue.

There were 5000 or 15000 at Bali, all at 5 ***** hotels, all there for a week or so, all there with the sole aim to save the planet. Great work if you can get it

But..... What if it doesn't wish to be saved? Perhaps Gaia is sick of us and just wishes to move on.

In around 1400AD (sorry CE), there was a mini ice age and many died as crops failed across Europe.

300 years before that, as previously noted by others, sea ice melted around the north pole which allowed settlement in Greenland and Iceland and precipitated the viking scourge as they were able to row around Europe unhindered by serious winters.

Only 12000 years ago, Sydney Harbour was a river system, the coastal plain extended 15km east from Sydney and you could walk to Tassie and New Guinea. North America and central Europe were covered with ice sheets, the melting of which provided the grain bowls which currently provide much of our current food.

Now that was serious GW. Was it a positive for the planet or negative? It was certainly a positive for Humans, but as for the planet....I'd suggest neither..... It was normal.

So why are we so fearful of change? What are the positives THIS TIME if GW does indeed occur? There are areas where a warmer climate will be greatly beneficial, but we don't go there, we're too worried about the barrier reef and a few islands. I'd suggest that as the reef of the world survived a 300 feet sea leve rise only 12000 years ago, that they can withstand a few inches over the next 50 years or so.

I'm just happy that we have a subject to fill the vacuum in the minds of those who miss the Howard Government, they have to have something to fill their time.

Taking a long term view, It will all be academic in 5 billion years or so when the sun becomes a red giant.

Regards


Greg

[q9]

Taking a long term view, It will all be academic in 5 billion years or so when the sun becomes a red giant.


Given that deep, insightful logic, murder should no longer be a crime. After all, in 5 billion years he'd have been dead anyway Your Honour :laughing1:





Have you considered the results of the action you propose?



Um, thanks, but it wasn't my idea! But I can see the rationale behind it. Create a carbon trading economy which favours those with the ability to reduce their emissions using a technological solution and in time reduce the credits available. This then gives the incentive for all to adopt the technical solutions, and given the nature of economics, the more competition for selling the technical solutions, the cheaper those solutions will become.

What it's ultimately about is agreeing that something should be done, and laying out the framework to make it happen. No more, no less.

[Greg Ward]

In time it will be revealed that carbon credit scheme(s) will be one of the greatest 'con's ever perpetrated since flared jeans and tulip bulbs.

Industry players and financial arbitragers will make a mint and the costs will be passed along totally....... to whom?????

The consumer and the general public of course, who will pay more for anything and everything produced.

There will be a huge profits made (by some) in 'investment' schemes to grow timber (for credits), and huge losses by investors.

There will be wild enthusiasm as more wind farms pollute out coastlines and more yellow bellied parrots fall from the sky.

What an exciting time we will have.

Greg

[dazzler]

Hey Rod

I've just been funnin :D

cheers


dazzler

[woodbe]

So I'm guessing we should add Greg Ward to the Skeptics list.

Near the top. :)

woodbe

[rod@plasterbrok]

Np Daz,

I wasn't ever likely to go to the trouble :)

[astrid]

hey Big Shed
re overpopulation
thats ok,
we australians are not replacing ourselves, so theyll be plenty of room for the refugees from the islands:)
which we will in true Australian spirit, welcome and absorb into our wonderful multiculturel community.

Astrid

[Big Shed]

hey Big Shed
re overpopulation
thats ok,
we australians are not replacing ourselves, so theyll be plenty of room for the refugees from the islands:)
which we will in true Australian spirit, welcome and absorb into our wonderful multiculturel community.

Astrid

Well thank you for that Astrid, I'm so happy to hear that. :2tsup:

Two minor points, I haven't talked about overpopulation and secondly I am too old to be the cause of same, but thank you for your concern:doh:

[q9]

So I'm guessing we should add Greg Ward to the Skeptics list.

Near the top. :)

woodbe

I'd add him to the "troll" list. Most of his last post is contradictory in nature. On the one hand he calls carbon credits a con, but then says something about yellow bellied parots...? Was that the study where they said that statistically they may get one parrot per year hit by the mill blades?? Also conveniently ignores the fact that if nothing is done and it goes to pot, then EVERYONE pays then too. Who's conning who?

So, troll I say.

[rod@plasterbrok]

Guys I have had to sit through your videos pro global warming will you sit through this one?

YouTube - Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? - Pt 1 of 4

[boban]

Silent,

One of those videos you posted was the focus of the following thread

http://woodworkforums.com/showthread.php?t=60069&highlight=argument

I picked a hole in it then. I think it still applies.

Strangely enough, my post was the last.

For me its not about who has proved whatever, its more about what I think is responsible and acceptable behaviour. You dont have to believe the hype. We should however support viable alternatives.

And does anybody know who these carbon taxes/fines go to. How does it work? Sounds fishy to me.

FWIW, my new house will be fairly big, but we plan to generate all our own electricity and capture enough water to do everything we want. Not to mention the materials we will be using. All this however comes at a very large cost.

[rod@plasterbrok]

Yep the smoke and mirrors gets em every time Boban.

[Greg Ward]

I'd add him to the "troll" list. Most of his last post is contradictory in nature. On the one hand he calls carbon credits a con, but then says something about yellow bellied parots...? Was that the study where they said that statistically they may get one parrot per year hit by the mill blades?? Also conveniently ignores the fact that if nothing is done and it goes to pot, then EVERYONE pays then too. Who's conning who?

So, troll I say.

Please chaps, name calling is even banned in schools now.

I'm just glad that you are really serious about this.

This being the case I am sure that this will not be all hot air and you will all be taking personal action to save the planet.

So ...... I look forward to the future posting of photos of your investments in GW reductions in your own lifestyles, the solar systems on your roof, the wind chimes to replace the stereo, the new Prius, the push bikes for the kids to ride to school, the biodegradable veggie garden, photos of the garage sale where you sell your electric heater and TV.

... and if you want to buy some carbon credits, I'm sure there will be many only too happy to take your money and plant a tree bearing your name.

....and of course this course of action comes with an admirable commitment never again to use wood in your shed, or read a newspaper or book as these use timber from trees which must be left standing to soak up CO2

We salute you

Greg

[astrid]

Sorry big shed,
It was Groggy,
Astrid

[MICKYG]

Merry XMAS to all and hope Santa brings you all the goodies you have wished for, drive safely and do not get too tipsy during this festive season. Thanks for your company and your valued thoughts throughout this past year

Regards Mike :2tsup::2tsup::2tsup:

[Sebastiaan56]

Silent,

One of those videos you posted was the focus of the following thread

http://woodworkforums.com/showthread.php?t=60069&highlight=argument

I picked a hole in it then. I think it still applies.

Strangely enough, my post was the last.

For me its not about who has proved whatever, its more about what I think is responsible and acceptable behaviour. You dont have to believe the hype. We should however support viable alternatives.

And does anybody know who these carbon taxes/fines go to. How does it work? Sounds fishy to me.

FWIW, my new house will be fairly big, but we plan to generate all our own electricity and capture enough water to do everything we want. Not to mention the materials we will be using. All this however comes at a very large cost.

Sorry Boban,

I let it go, broke my leg. Just reread the posts on the precautionary principle. Why should solving an overconsumption problem (ie using lots of carbon based fuel) cause a depression? I would have thought that there was an major opportunity for new industries to emerge and generate new wealth. The aging carbon based energy infrastructure will need to be upgraded or replaced in time anyway. I dont see how that would cause depression. I see it as part of a reinvestment cycle with lots of opportunity.

Good on you for your house. Did you you a total cost of ownership because Im sure that there would be savings over the 40-100 years of its lifespan. A lot of these strategies make very good financial sense. I know a number of people now who get a cheque from the electricity companies every quarter. Mind you it took then 11 years to pay off the initial investment. Do an NPV on that one!

BTW NSW Govt privatising electricity says to me that they dont have the nouse/balls/money to get out of carbon. When carbon pricing hits they will have got rid of the liability and hopefully some smart business people will make more money by transitioning to another power source. I wonder what the depreciation on the current infrastructure will be.

Good Vid Rod. Geologists bring another perspective. This is why I think a scientific approach is needed. At least the dialogue can be amended by facts. The pressing problems whether man made or natural are still the survival of millions of Bangladeshi's, New Orleaners etc. There will be cold comfort for them to know that its just natural and the rest of the world stood by and watched. We need adaptive as well as carbon reducing strategies as well as now.

Sebastiaan

[silentC]

I picked a hole in it then. I think it still applies.
You should contact him then because he invites anyone to do so.

[boban]

Sorry Boban,

Why should solving an overconsumption problem (ie using lots of carbon based fuel) cause a depression? I would have thought that there was an major opportunity for new industries to emerge and generate new wealth. The aging carbon based energy infrastructure will need to be upgraded or replaced in time anyway. I dont see how that would cause depression. I see it as part of a reinvestment cycle with lots of opportunity.

Sebastiaan


I'm referring to the conclusions drawn by the author/presenter. Your conclusion may be arguable but the same must be true on both sides of that argument or at the end of either column. The financial result does not alter because the problem is real. You will spend the same amount of money whether it is real or not.

I suspect that the reason it is done, is for a more positive outcome for the argument to do something. I'm obviously not against the proposition of doing something, its just that this particular argument is flawed.

For example, if we have $10 in the bank and it will cost us $20 to fix the problem, then, whether the problem is real or not (and we decide to act) ,then we will go broke regardless of whether our response is justified. If the problem is not real and we don't act then we must be financially better off. We will still have our $10 because we did nothing.

[Big Shed]

Guys I have had to sit through your videos pro global warming will you sit through this one?

YouTube - Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? - Pt 1 of 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI&feature=related)

Good find Rod, certainly food for thought there. A well presented case presented with some humour (sadly lacking in so many pro and con presentations!)

I have watched and downloaded all 4 parts and added them to my collection of info on global warming.

Particularly liked his reference to polar bears on ABC and SBS, very astute observer!

[Lignum]

Good find Rod, certainly food for thought there. A well presented case presented with some humour (sadly lacking in so many pro and con presentations!)


Loved the Polar Bears kicking back with a Penguin on the spit.:D

[silentC]

Column A is wrong in that the conclusions drawn cannot be different. It does not matter whether global warming is true or false.

If you spend the money and it is false, he concludes that we will have a global depression. OK that's a reasonable conclusion.

If you spend the money and it is true, he concludes that everything is rosy. How on earth can that be right if the same amount of money is spent. Sure it was well spent, but still spent. You must logically still have a global depression, but you have saved the planet so to speak.

So if we act in accordance with column A, we will have a global depression and save the planet whether it is true or false. It's the safe approach as far as the environment is concerned. With column B you are gambling.

So he asks for a hole in his argument, I think I found one.

I think this is his point. Yes you still have the cost (he did include that) but you have saved the planet. The downside of selecting column A is that you might suffer the cost for no benefit. It's a question of selecting the best risk. The risk of column A is that you waste money. The risk of column B is that the world collapses. That's the whole point of his argument.

This is a common practice in business when deciding upon an action. It makes sense to do it. It's logical. The only problem is that you have to agree there might be a problem to begin with. Seeing as we're still arguing 'rows' (whether or not the problem even exists) it makes it hard to move on to the next step - what to do about it.

Rod, I watched the video. The problem for me is that I have no way of confirming his data. I don't even know how they can tell what the temperature was 2000 years ago, let alone 10,000 or 200,000,000. I can only take his word for it, so how is that any more convincing than what his colleagues are saying, unless I already have a predisposition to believe what he is saying?

[Sebastiaan56]

I suspect that the reason it is done, is for a more positive outcome for the argument to do something. I'm obviously not against the proposition of doing something, its just that this particular argument is flawed.

For example, if we have $10 in the bank and it will cost us $20 to fix the problem, then, whether the problem is real or not (and we decide to act) ,then we will go broke regardless of whether our response is justified. If the problem is not real and we don't act then we must be financially better off. We will still have our $10 because we did nothing.

Of course there will be bias, by definition any argument must include bias. Not sure I can accept the flaw though. Nowhere did I hear the bankrupt to solve a problem proposition. He also states he is using worst case propositions. There are massive energy investments already planned, not 12 months ago we were being scared in the media by potential January/February brown outs and the need for more infrastructure. China and India must be capital raising at a frenzy. So how to invest the cash already planned? I smell business opportunity.

A brief diversion if I may, another other point here is that we dont only burn oil. Plastics are almost exclusively made from the stuff, it just makes more sense to get the highest value product from a raw material, particularly when the other use is energy. So even if global warming turns out to be a Latham, we've still wasted a particularly useful raw material. Silly really especially if we are actually running out.

Recommend reading "Critical Path" by Buckminster Fuller.

Sebastiaan

[rod@plasterbrok]

This was in yeterdays age.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,22938759-7583,00.html?from=public_rss

Slowly but surely some common sense is getting back into the debate. We should be pulling all stops and invest heavily in the science and focus on the results and facts before committing trillions of dollars attempting to fix a problem that does not exist.

I think you will be seeing more from this type of rational thinking getting published in the years to come as the political and economic costs start to bite.

There will be a tipping point, when the weight of scientific evidence can no longer be ignored combined with observed changes in climate not reflecting the computer models, v's the forecast economic, social and more important political cost.