Environment problems

[woodbe]

Professor Carter makes a good argument. He is very knowledgable, and presents his argument forcefully.

Google search brings up a lot of entries that suggest he is in conflict with a lot of the scientific community (I guess this is to be expected) There are some worrying entries on sourcewatch in his name:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bob_Carter

Of particular interest are his comments on scientist's funding, and the information about the AEF Australian Environmental Foundation (which is a front group for the Institute of Public Affairs), of which he is a founding member.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Australian_Environment_Foundation

As a mere member of the public, I'd find it easier to accept his public speaking arguments if he had the support of places like the CSIRO:

http://www.csiro.au/news/ps38w.html


'In the face of such clear and present danger, more than ever we need good scientific practice whereby well-founded criticism and new, more robust analysis is used to revise or reject previous positions. However, misinformed and misleading debate risks deflecting the community from the vital challenge ahead, which is to mitigate and adapt to climate change.'

woodbe.

[silentC]

"Concern about unsettling climatic events is natural, but we are not the problem."

This is the bit that gets me. How can anyone be so certain of that? Aren't there just as many scientists saying either we are the problem, or we are part of it?

I think that the common sense has always been there. This debate has obviously been going on for some time before the media got a hold of it. I have read just as rational and reasoned arguments in favour of AGW. It wasn't a newspaper editor or a politician or a radical greenie who came up with that idea, it MUST be based on science, else it would have been discarded a long time ago. Whether its right or not remains to be seen - but you can't dismiss it just because there are dissenting voices, no matter how humorous or common sense. Charles Darwin, for example, was accused of heresy and caricatured as an ape, it didn't mean he was wrong.

[Big Shed]

Charles Darwin, for example, was accused of heresy and caricatured as an ape, it didn't mean he was wrong.

You are treading on dangerous ground there Silentc, don't forget that Charles Darwin was very much in the minority and absolutely ridiculed by the majority of scientists of the time.

Indeed he was found to be right, although some people to this day do not believe in evolution.

[woodbe]

Not to mention Galileo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo)

:)

woodbe.

[silentC]

Yes but my point is that he was presenting an opposing view that required people to change their preconceptions. He might just as easily have been wrong, and would likely have been the first to admit it, but just because the best science of the day disagreed with him and he was widely ridiculed, did not make what he was saying any less worth considering. Of course this argument is just as valid for anti-AGW proponents. It's a good thing I'm just as happy to listen to them and accept what they say.

My argument is that, given there are no absolutes in science, and given that a significant portion of the scientific community has come out and said that global warming is taking place and that it is at least partially man-made, we cannot dismiss those claims just because there are opposing views in the same community. It's not enough to point to the various arguments and say "see, this bloke says that it's all a myth" because we are in the test tube and we have to get it right. If one scientist can be wrong, so can any other. So it's a self-cancelling argument. You have to assume that people have good reason to believe the things they are saying. The best we can do as a civilisation is to assign a probability to the possible outcomes and act accordingly. It's a gamble, that's why risk management is a good philosophy to adopt.

[Big Shed]

Yes but my point is that he was presenting an opposing view that required people to change their preconceptions. He might just as easily have been wrong, and would likely have been the first to admit it, but just because the best science of the day disagreed with him and he was widely ridiculed, did not make what he was saying any less worth considering.


I'm sure Professor Carter will value your approval:2tsup:

[silentC]

Well I did say the argument applies equally to both sides. As does the one that scientists can be wrong. :)

[boban]

To make it clear guys, I am all for doing what can reasonably be done. The depression result is the author's prediction, not mine. It may well turn out to be money very well spent as suggested by Sebastian. That however, has nothing to do with the argument presented.

As was made clear by someone else, the same table can be used to persuade you to believe in God. Somehow I don't think Silent will swallow that one.

My problem is with the different conclusions drawn, not the debate as to whether it is real or not. Like I said, if you spend the same amount, the conclusion has to be the same as far as the financial situation is concerned. The argument presented by the author is very simplistic, but flawed. Like I intimated, its all about advocacy.

I don't care whether its real or not. I will do my part because its sensible and possible.

[silentC]

My point of view is really quite straight forward: unless you have done your own research, and I don't mean reading the opinions of others, I mean making your own observations and testing your theories against them, I don't see how you can possibly accept some arguments and refute others. The only way you can do that is by using your own preconceptions of the truth to find the arguments that you agree with.

To me, that negates all public debate on whether or not we have a real problem on our hands. I can't see how we can have a meaningful debate about it unless we are involved in that field of science. It's like debating the pros and cons of golf balls if you have never played. You can read about them and get a feel for the various professional opinions on them, but until you've actually played the game, it's meaningless and in a sense irrelevant which one you favour.

What we CAN have a debate about is whether the government should take action, based on the expert advice they receive. You HAVE to have faith in that advice because it's all you have to work on. It might be wrong, as it has been many times in the past, but the risk lies in ignoring it when it might also be true. That's the nature of risk - it's not a certainty, it's a possibility. So is the possibility significant enough to take precautions.

If all of the people arguing the case for man-made global warming turn out to be charlatans, I'll be pleased, as will everyone involved in the debate I'm sure. But you have to give them some credit because it is their field of expertise. Surely that gives it some weight and requires us to consider it as a possibility?

[silentC]

As was made clear by someone else, the same table can be used to persuade you to believe in God. Somehow I don't think Silent will swallow that one.
Yes I was waiting for that to come up. You can use that table to assess any risk. The risk of there really being a God and the consequence of not believing being that you go to hell instead of heaven. There are a couple of problems with that: you have to accept there is an afterlife, which is where the proposed risk is to take place; You have to accept that the religion that wants me to believe in a single God and go to church and follow the bible is the correct religion. It's it patently not falsifiable, so not even worth debating.

Climate change is falsifiable though. If someone can come up with conclusive and convincing evidence that climate change is not caused by man, then the whole argument evaporates. Likewise if someone can come up with conclusive and convincing evidence that it is caused by man. Both positions are falsifiable and therefore worth debating. There's also the possibility that the outcome may have an impact in this life, which is the only one we really know exists.

[rod@plasterbrok]

Well I did say the argument applies equally to both sides. As does the one that scientists can be wrong.

Hence the need to assess carfully all scientific arguments before making an informed decision of your own personal leaning.

None of us laymen can say for certain this or that is happening we can only form a view and follow the science.

Too many people simply just believe what they read in the paper or are told by others without making enquiry to other points of view.

This subject is highly emotive as demonstrated by Astrid, who on another thread stated that she hardly speaks to her brother inlaw because he does not believe in AGW. What a shame that she would destroy what may be a perfectly normal relationship because of her belief in AGW.

I have many good friends that disagree with my position and they are still good friends.

The fact that this belief can stir such strong emotions is a worry, the emotions cloud the ability to look at the facts and form a more reasonalble position.

This blind faith in AGW is simply wrong but understandable as the fear and hype has been very effective in forcing this faith on many people.

Politicians have been forced to act as they could never win an election with an anti AGW stand. The fact politicians have come out in tacit agreement on AGW has in turn re-enforced public opinion.

There are too many holes in the theory to be ignored and because of the emotions etc it will take a long time to reverse even if or when irrefutable evidence to the contrary is presented.

[boban]

At some point, be it religion or climate change, you must rely on others to relay information. What you want to believe you will justify based on your own experiences. Remember WMD's. How many were convinced?

I really don't see the point in doing nothing. There is no logical reason to do nothing if we can figure out viable alternatives. We humans are very resourceful when we have to be.

We are all getting our knickers in a knot over nothing really. By that I mean those who dont want to do anything because it will cost too much.

If your electricity bill doubled because we went solar, then you would adapt. You have to. Less money spent on the next TV, V8 or whatever luxury we take for granted now. After food and shelter, everything else is unnecessary. Perhaps we should focus on that fact.

Don't get me wrong, I love my toys, but I know I can do without them. My grandfather and those before him did. He was a blacksmith and farmer in Croatia and reckoned he had a good life (all 94 years of it). No plasma in his house, no boat, no Landcruiser, but plenty of wine and enough food to get by when the wars weren't on.

[SPIRIT]

the number of post on this subject over the last year what over a few 1000 :doh:
18 years ago we got into something called premaculture,back then we knew something was wrong if the way we were heading started teaching it in comunity centers ,then had a bit of a run in high schools,
sorry l couldn't get though all 14 pages of posts

now we all look at it if we need to start repairing the earth it will hurt our way of living ,so true if you always look at the darker side of things

just afew things that CAN be done that will immprove your living standed

#1 live local.... this mean thing you do bring them as close to home as posable,work ,school,shopping biuld up a net work around where you live its called a comunity .IF you are a boss please hire people that live local!!

#2 networking/trading....this is the most enjoyable part shareing your exsess this could be food from your garden ,things from work that are just tossed away ,labor,knowage,ect it may take years to get repayment from somebody this is the tricky bit is that you have to owe other people favours for the whole thing to work

#3 supply as much of your own needs as you can ,food ,water,heating ect

thats just a small part of the plan ,
see not much suffering and the energy saved in transport would help

PS l am also a sinner, love a holiday up the east coast surfing with the kids but l try to do my bit:)

[woodbe]

Hence the need to assess carfully all scientific arguments before making an informed decision of your own personal leaning.


More than that.

As laymen, we simply cannot assess scientific arguments well. We don't have the knowledge, the process, the training or the experience.

So, it helps to take a bit of a disbelief role, as you have done, Rod, but not to latch on to either side, but to question the authority of those that deliver us the science. Check the credentials, look at the peer review information, look at where these scientists come from, and who pays their wages.

Yes, it's shocking, but vested interests have been involved in muddying the waters in many debates that have been in the public eye, and not just this one. Tobacco is the big one, but also obesity, asbestos, flouride, vaccinations, etc. etc.

Never underestimate the power of profit to subvert the truth.

woodbe.

[astrid]

BY ROD

"This subject is highly emotive as demonstrated by Astrid, who on another thread stated that she hardly speaks to her brother inlaw because he does not believe in AGW. What a shame that she would destroy what may be a perfectly normal relationship because of her belief in AGW."

Actually I dont speak to my BIL because he makes his living in 2nd & 3rd word countries exploiting the locals for peanuts (he's in exploratary mining)
Thinks GW will be OK because (if it happens) he's got millions and will be able to protect himself and he's generally a complete Ahole

kindly dont selectivly para phrase me to support your dishonest arguements.
If you wish to quote me in full, thats fine and i'll take any flack that comes.

Astrid

PS dont know how to hilight quotes

[woodbe]

PS dont know how to hilight quotes

It's easy to do, but hard to explain, because the forum software does it once you put the pieces in place.

Easiest method is to click the 'Quote' button and delete the bits you didn't want, making sure to leave the square brackets [] alone.

Next method is to paste the offending text into the window, select it with the mouse and click the quote button http://image-mirror.cyanide.com.au/woodworkforums/images/editor/quote.gif

Last method is to manually type the "quote" and "/quote" markup enclosing them in square brackets.

Hope that helps...

woodbe

[astrid]

Thanks Woodbe,
Little by little we master the beast.

Astrid

[LotteBum]

This thread just goes to show that some people will search endlessly in order to find information which supports their own opinion, rather than search for real information, regardless of whether it may contradict their own opinion. That's narrow minded and rather pathetic.

Personally, I'm somewhat sceptical about the human impact on AGW, but I'm not silly enough to sit back and do nothing... those who are must be plain selfish.

Lotte

[Mickj]

Wow... Excellent thread guys.
When all the emotion is taken out, you guys actually make sense.

Well Done.

[rod@plasterbrok]

Astrid.
I definitely do not want to get into a slanging match with you, but I find your reference to my arguments as being "dishonest" rather offensive as I have not said one thing that could be considered dishonest. Just because you happen to dissagree with my view does not make me or my arguments dishonest.

If you would like me to quote you in total thats OK by me here it is.

By Astrid
my brother in law is a geologist with heavy investments inmining, uranium etc.

funny that he is also a man made climate change sceptic.

he believes that any climate change is a natural phenomina and there is nothing we can do about it.
he also states that some people will be less comfortable (like dead?)

i try to argue that if it is anatural phenomina will not our rapacious use on fossil fuels make the phenomina worse

his answer "we'll be OK cos I have the economic reasources to cushion the effects for my family"

needless to say, I dont talk to him unless I have to

I think this supports my argument as I presented it. I have not put you down in any way for having this view I simply say it is a shame. Nor do I put you down for your views on AGW even though I strongly disagree with them, more so, that you seem to be very closed minded on the subject and emotionally attached to it. As demonstrated by your posts and willingness to put down anyone that does not share your view. In particular to denegrate any person who produces scientific evidence that does not support your mantra.

Why can't you simply debate the content and validity of such, rather than try to discredit the person.

Or simply put forward your own views that can then be open to be debated as SilentC and I have done in a very civilised manner. SilentC you have my respect!

Cheers Rod

[astrid]

I think that to selectivly take part of someones post without refering the whole, to try to imply that some people are so obsessed with a belief that they are willing to damage relationships is dishonest.
This is an attempted slur on those who you obviosly see as a political threat.
Its an old trick of the right wing and Ill pull you up on it.

as i might add is accusing people of being "emotional"
and playing one party off against another

and as to my non contribution, I'm reading and thinking. The AGW believers dont need me to blow your arguments out of the water,
They're doing a fine job on their own.

Astrid

[boban]

I think that to selectivly take part of someones post without refering the whole, to try to imply that some people are so obsessed with a belief that they are willing to damage relationships is dishonest.
This is an attempted slur on those who you obviosly see as a political threat.
Its an old trick of the right wing and Ill pull you up on it.

Astrid

I really think you have got it wrong Astrid. But that's just my opinion.

[Big Shed]

I really think you have got it wrong Astrid. But that's just my opinion.

Hear, hear:2tsup:

[astrid]

thats fine guy's
but it wasnt your post that was misused.
I dont think it was even on this thread.
and I have been a very minor player on this one.
So what was Rods point.
Astrid

apologies to moderators

[Groggy]

Apologies to moderators would be misdirected in this instance.

[RETIRED]

Now, now kiddies. No personal attacks please. Agree to disagree about the topic and debate it.

[rod@plasterbrok]

This debate has touched on being lively at times and has had some great points put forward on both sides. At first I wondered what I got myself into but as it went along I learnt a lot more about my own opinions as much as i did the opinion of others.

I have enjoyed the banter with SilentC and hope any one who reads this threads gets something out of it as well.

I would hate to see it develope into a slanging match, as debate is good.

I forward my apologies to Astrid if I personaly offended her. An attack on her person was never my intention. Feel free to challenge my opinions.

Thanks Moderators.

Cheers Rod

[Sebastiaan56]

This debate has touched on being lively at times and has had some great points put forward on both sides. At first I wondered what I got myself into but as it went along I learnt a lot more about my own opinions as much as i did the opinion of others.

I have enjoyed the banter with SilentC and hope any one who reads this threads gets something out of it as well.

I would hate to see it develope into a slanging match, as debate is good.

I forward my apologies to Astrid if I personaly offended her. An attack on her person was never my intention. Feel free to challenge my opinions.

Thanks Moderators.

Cheers Rod

Hi Rod,

I agree, the day I dont learn more is the day I stop drawing breath. What we are doing is the scientific process, bringing in more data and debating. I also believe that we have the right, in fact the imperative, to test our scientists as we do our pollies, religious, and business leaders. Human knowledge evolves, there are no "end points". I am extremely wary of someone who doesnt let me think for myself.


Yes, it's shocking, but vested interests have been involved in muddying the waters in many debates that have been in the public eye, and not just this one. Tobacco is the big one, but also obesity, asbestos, flouride, vaccinations, etc. etc.

Never underestimate the power of profit to subvert the truth.

Well said Woodbe. We all have a role to play in this dialogue. Those who are the public figures should disclose their funding. One of my favourite all time sites was fossilfuels.org which advocated using more to increase the CO2 in the environment to encourage plant growth. Sponsored by an oil lobby group in the US. I cant find it anymore so I guess its gone to archive land.

Sebastiaan

[silentC]

I have enjoyed the banter with SilentC and hope any one who reads this threads gets something out of it as well.

I've enjoyed it too. I must admit I often like to play the devil's advocate. My own beliefs in this matter are not very concrete, having not done a great deal of research into it myself. I do tend to take what we are told by the scientific community at face value, assuming that they have the best of intentions. I understand how these arguments are hijacked by the media, politicians and other groups with vested interests, so that's what we have to watch for.

I believe that the risk management approach put forward by that guy in all those videos is a logical point of view - but it assumes that you put enough stock in what is being said to believe that these catastrophic events have a real possibility of taking place. I feel that ordinary mortals such as ourselves don't have the training and experience required to debate on the same level as the scientists making the claims. That we have to take their advice and act on it - but in a considered and methodical way, not a mass panic. So I can appreciate the calls for calm.

All I really object to is any line of argument that makes definite statements about things, one way or the other. I suppose the danger is that there will come a point in time when the hype becomes ingrained as a fact and all of our policy is built on an absolute acceptance of it. That is where we have to rely on the scientific community to do a sanity test. Past mistakes aside, I believe that we have no-one else to rely on.

If that sounds non-comittal, that's because it is.

Cheers,
Agnostic C

:)

[Gra]

Agnostic C

Well you defiantly weren't silent :D:D

again good debate. If the government debates were so well performed we might get somewhere

[rod@plasterbrok]

I suppose the danger is that there will come a point in time when the hype becomes ingrained as a fact and all of our policy is built on an absolute acceptance of it. That is where we have to rely on the scientific community to do a sanity test. Past mistakes aside, I believe that we have no-one else to rely on.



I would say that this has already happened in the main.

The problem as I see it is that the MSM have accepted AGW as real and reports always as if there is no possibility that it may not be real.

The average person relies on the Media and generally accept what they hear as truth. It is no wonder people look at you funny when you say, "hang on it is not conclusive yet".

Governments should all independently asign a team of non biased scientist to go through all available data and theories on both sides of the argument without reference to the possible results of AGW. Then real policy can be formulated without predjudice.

The problem with taking into account the possible effect of AGW in any stud into the reality of AGW, is that any person would surely err on the side of extreme caution slanting the results in there prefered direction.

They should proceed on the basis there would not be any significant problem with warming, then if established based on pure facts, less the emotion, that AGW is inevitable, then the effects should be considered without inflation. With that, reasonable action could be taken without fear.

At the moment scientists and Governments alike face incredibly hostile reaction to any mention of doubt to AGW. This is what is stifleing proper debate on this subject.

The debate is far from over and infact just beginning.

Cheers Rod

[dazzler]

Now, now kiddies. No personal attacks please. Agree to disagree about the topic and debate it.

Hi Dad....It was billy, he is always naughty when youre not around :D :p

[Sebastiaan56]

Hi Dad....It was billy, he is always naughty when youre not around :D :p

Daaaaadd.... Dazz isnt sharing his beer properly........

[rod@plasterbrok]

Hmmm. This makes interesting reading.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

Your comments?

or this http://www.newstatesman.com/200712190004

Please attack the opinion and the reason why it is wrong.

[silentC]

Haven't got time to read the whole thing at the moment (they expect me to do some work today!) but yes I can see that it's far from across the board agreement.

I guess it depends on how you define consensus - some definitions I have seen state that consensus suggests no disagreement, but I've always believed it to mean that there is a majority. I think some lay people outside the scientific debate have perhaps read too much into the use of the term in this case and held that it means a) the entire scientific community is in agreement (as if that would ever happen) and b) that it indicates certainty that events described are going to take place.

It stands to reason that there are going to be dissenting opinions. If it swings around to the point where the majority dispute the claims, then you can say that consensus is against global warming being as big an issue as has been claimed, even though there will always be scientists who fervently believe that it is. The question is then whether having a concensus is enough to dimiss it.

[dazzler]

Hmmm. This makes interesting reading.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

Your comments?

or this http://www.newstatesman.com/200712190004

Please attack the opinion and the reason why it is wrong.

Hi Rod,

Wow that senate link had a lot of stuff and was work getting through. Suffice it to say that there are a lot of skeptical experts with very valid views.

In my mind though the newstatesman link is what concerns me.

The evidence of the rise in co2 parts per million since the start of the Industrial Revolution;

From New Statesman...

The evidence for this hypothesis is the well established physics of the greenhouse effect itself and the correlation of increasing global carbon dioxide concentration with rising global temperature. Carbon dioxide is clearly increasing in the Earth’s atmosphere. It’s a straight line upward. It is currently about 390 parts per million. Pre-industrial levels were about 285 ppm. Since 1960 when accurate annual measurements became more reliable it has increased steadily from about 315 ppm. If the greenhouse effect is working as we think then the Earth’s temperature will rise as the carbon dioxide levels increase.
But here it starts getting messy and, perhaps, a little inconvenient for some. Looking at the global temperatures as used by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the UK’s Met Office and the IPCC (and indeed Al Gore) it’s apparent that there has been a sharp rise since about 1980.
The period 1980-98 was one of rapid warming – a temperature increase of about 0.5 degrees C (CO2 rose from 340ppm to 370ppm). But since then the global temperature has been flat (whilst the CO2 has relentlessly risen from 370ppm to 380ppm). This means that the global temperature today is about 0.3 deg less than it would have been had the rapid increase continued.

So humans have raised the CO2 level by about 25% over that period.

So there is no arguement that humans have changed the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and there appears to be no argument even in the senate link that CO2 is a factor in the greenhouse effect and that a warming or cooling planet may be a very natural thing.

So the arguement seems to be more as to whether its

a. manmade

and

b. is it going to benefit or hurt humans.

For the skeptics the answer is "maybe" to a. as most that i have seen are skeptical but not definate

and maybe for b.

So maybe we are doing it, maybe not. Maybe it will hurt us, maybe not.

Your arguement seems to be that the proof isnt there so lets hold off until we sort it one way or the other. I think thats a fine arguement if we have somewhere else to go if we are wrong. Sadly we dont.

Doesnt it seem reasonable for the future of our species that the current inhabitants at least limit what changes we are making until the situation is clear. Do we have the right to keep on doing things that change the composition of the atmosphere when we are unsure of the outcome.

So I agree with you that global warming is not clear cut 100% definate. But I would really like to see us at least be a bit safer until we know.

cheeers

dazzler

[pharmaboy2]

dazzler - there is a great deal of difference between CO2 is agreenhouse gas (known fact) and co2 is responsible for warming. Warming could be an oceanagraphic change, it could be solar, it could be cosmic ray induced, it could be methane induced, it could be co2 induced.

There is not too many who disagree that man has created the co2 levels, but quantifying what effect that will have on temperature is difficult. A simple look at the graphs of co2 versus average temperature would show anybody that the 2 arent inextricably linked - at best there is a very decent sized delay. this delay in efffect is one of the reason we get such large ranges in time as to temp effects.

Second reason is the application of albedo effect. the models used by the IPCC have co2 producing about 20% or less of the warming, but water vapour forcing the rest but this depends on the ehight and makeup of clouds or whether simply higher humidity are the result. This difference is substantially disputed with a range from positive feedback all the ways to a negative feedback. All the discussion is pointless untill the question of what will happen to clouds with increased temp is settled.

Now with a small note - the 0.5 increase in recent decades, onw would have thought that the cloud issue would have been cleared up, alas no, the latest study on tropical cloud formation during a warm period was for a negative feedback, and hence an end to the modellers predictions of large changes - but they wont give up that easy -!

Consensus - keeps getting brought up, but consensus is the absolute enemy of scientific understanding - the wrod "breakthrough" is only necessary as science has a strong tendency towards accepted paradigms. Skeptics call consensus "groupthink"!

[rod@plasterbrok]

Dazzler, My view is that we should take all reasonable steps to reduce polloution as a matter of course.

What I object to is spending trillions of dollars world wide in a knee jerk reaction to something that may not exist as many studies are predicting.

If kyoto goes through as the IPPC wants the only result will be a transfer of wealth from developed countries to undeveloped countries, with no measureable reduction in Co2 and no definite reduction in warming.

In view of the fact that temperatures have stabalised over the last 10 years I thing that extreme action needs to be delayed while further studies are made.

Cheers

Rod

[MICKYG]

This may be of interest to the issue:

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


Regards Mike

[dazzler]

dazzler - there is a great deal of difference between CO2 is agreenhouse gas (known fact) and co2 is responsible for warming. Warming could be an oceanagraphic change, it could be solar, it could be cosmic ray induced, it could be methane induced, it could be co2 induced.



Hi

I didnt say it leads to warming. What I am saying is we ARE changing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and have done so to the extent of at least 25% more than previously existed.

Nature didnt do it, we did, and its not normal.

I have a marine fish tank that I need to monitor constantly. If the levels of one salt change just a couple of percent then the fishes die. Transpose this to the air we breath and I wonder if it does us any good.

If a 25% change is okay and not to worry about then what level should we go to. 50%, 100% ?.

cheers

dazzler

[dazzler]

If kyoto goes through as the IPPC wants the only result will be a transfer of wealth from developed countries to undeveloped countries, with no measureable reduction in Co2 and no definite reduction in warming.



Well maybe we will be paying back some loooooooong overdue debts :D

[rod@plasterbrok]

Mike, if co2 emissions are in fact detrimental to the world via Global Warming and those emissions have to be reduced, the emissions per capita is of no benefit at at all.

It is not rocket science to realize that the nett reduction of emissions would be the key to prevent any perils that co2 might produce.

A small country like Australia could reduce emissions by 100% and yet a 2% increase in an large population country would mean a nett increase to World emissions.

If emissions have to be reduced to save the world then EVERY country would have to reduce their emissions or at a minimum some counties reduce theirs and others remain stable. How else will could it work?

If all countries reduced their emmisions or lifted their emissions to the current world average based on a per capita basis there would be a nett increase in emissions world wide. Would that work?

[pharmaboy2]

Hi


If a 25% change is okay and not to worry about then what level should we go to. 50%, 100% ?.

cheers

dazzler

No-one is saying it should all simply be ignored (well, not me anyway) But it also shouldnt follw that anything we change "MUST" be bad - thats a theory ascribed to gaia enthusiasts who see humans as a blight on the planet, but not the most sane people. it is what it is, the question is will it do serious harm, is it on track to, and in what time lines.

Even if we accept that deep cuts must be made on the say so of the believers, is it possible, realistically? That means getting all countries to severely curtail their output in carbon based economies - its going to be no small task and it'd be fair IMO to therefore say goodbye to economic growth (and hence real wages grwoth and better living stds), say good bye to the third world becoming developed, say goodbye to modern medicine in the 3rd world etc.

Now 3rd world countries arent going to accept that, why dont they deserve a similar std of living, so they will go on and burn burn burn - that ends up in a transfer of wealth to the non bound emitters.

So whats the answer - well, i think that the answer is planning for adpatation as necessary, and science and engineering to look at other methods of controlling the temp if at some point it starts to become an impending problem. prevention is not the only solution, and while prevention sounds nice, its only helpful when you can tell the future with pretty clear accuracy.

We have time and plenty of it - more of that time should go into determining which way albedo will go with increased temp, see if the current flat period of world temp stays with us, and develop ways of tackling the handling of the issue in time.

[rod@plasterbrok]

Yes a more reasoned approach with the doom and gloom theories cast aside for the purpose of discussion will go a long way to a sensible solution.

I