Environment problems

[MICKYG]

Hi Members

Every time we turn on the television or open a newspaper we hear about the issues relating to Green House Gas emissions etc. If you had the say in what could be done to improve the situation, what would you do???

Some things which come to mind are :

Fireworks
Burning Tyres / Rubber
Increased demand on electric supply with xmas lighting

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.

Regards Mike:?:?:?

[echnidna]

Ban heat pump air conditioners except in regions where evaporative are unsuitable. This would minimise electricity needs

Start seed tree planting in native forests with trees appropriate for the new climate, so as the old forests die, new ones are taking over.

[wheelinround]

Turn off all electrical equipment on display in stores/shopping centres having 25/50 TV's going dozens of sound systems etc for 12 hrs a day some 24/7 has to do more damage than turning on a TV and air conditioner at home for 6 hrs.

Yesterday I walked ok so I rolled into a store selling displaying christmas lights the heat given off was that of a room small heater.

[Sebastiaan56]

Mike,

Complicated questions, no simple answers, my 2c

For the greenhouse problem; build renewable energy power plants. Particularly tidal and solar/steam. I'd also stop all logging in Indonesia and the Amazon basin. For the biodiversity problem stop all old growth logging and set aside some serious Nat Parks. For the population problem... well who's getting any anyway? For the social disruption caused by all of the above, become universal world dictator.

As to what the individual can do, drive less, turn appliances off, plant more trees and buy Australian, even if it more expensive.

Sebastiaan

[Black Ned]

I.ve brought this up before and not much concern in replies.

Aviation Fuel - Millions of litres are released into the air every day all over the world. Airlines load more fuel in case of problems or delays in flight. Before they land the plane the excess is dumped into the skies so as to minimise fire and explosion should the plane crash. The fuel is a form of kerosene. You can kill weeds and lawn by spraying with kerosene. You also breathe this in anf we have huge incidence of respitory diseases. The people who respond say that it is shot high in the atmosphere and doesn't create a problem. Great response from interested parties who do not want any problems with their business - travel, transport, airforce, etc.

[Waldo]

Build nuclear powerstations, oh I forgot, everyone says not in my backyard but doesn't think big picture. :(( The same for desalination plants, not in my backyard the idiots also say but don't think big picture. Everyone is after me, me and me but not him, her and them down the track.

[Groggy]

Aviation Fuel - Millions of litres are released into the air every day all over the world. Airlines load more fuel in case of problems or delays in flight. Before they land the plane the excess is dumped into the skies so as to minimise fire and explosion should the plane crash. Hi Linden, planes only dump fuel in the event of some kind of emergency, they do not do it as a matter of course.

[Christopha]

Cancel Christmas !!!! All that present production and electricity for Christmas lights and extra cooking and all those trees used as wrapping paper and Fuel used visiting bloody rellies and all that damned energy sapping smiling crap.... BAH HUMBUGGERIT!

[bitingmidge]

Great idea Chris!

I was going to send you a new mitre saw for Christmas too!

That's saved me a few bob!
:D:D:D

P

[Lignum]

Aviation Fuel

So we can make a start by getting 15.000 Delegates to Jet into Bali to work out how to solve the problem:wink:

[Rossluck]

The technicians need to work harder on traffic light technology. These dumb, stupid (but life saving) apparatuses needlessly hold traffic up well after the one or two cars that triggered them have dribbled through. All over the world there are vehicles waiting needlessly while the lights go backwards and forwards through their dumb switching programs. This contribution to greenhouse gasses and the swallowing of fossil fuels is a disgrace.

Now I feel better.

[dazzler]

The technicians need to work harder on traffic light technology. These dumb, stupid (but life saving) apparatuses needlessly hold traffic up well after the one or two cars that triggered them have dribbled through. All over the world there are vehicles waiting needlessly while the lights go backwards and forwards through their dumb switching programs. This contribution to greenhouse gasses and the swallowing of fossil fuels is a disgrace.

Now I feel better.

We could replace them with Work for the dole people with coloured torches :2tsup:

[dazzler]

Hi Mike

I believe that humanity is really headed into strife and global warming is just one area.

The big one IMO is over population and the use of the planets resources. Sadly as a species we have historically shown that we are greedy and pretty stupid when it comes to our environment that nurtures us. This is not just a modern thing, look at the deforestation of easter island to move statues around and species extinction and habitat change that occurred by both indigenous australians and maori pre white settlement and of course the massive damage we have done since.

I have never been a greeny, used to like wrestling with them at protests :p :wink:, but just lately have began to question where were all going.

Where are we all going to fit, where is all the food and water going to come from to sustain everyone.

I am rambling here but the problem is so much bigger than most people are willing to accept and changing a few light bulbs or signing kyoto is going to do diddly, particularly when china and india are beginning to come alive with technology.

We consume at amazing rates because we are greedy. I live in a new house that has four bedrooms, a lounge dining, family room and a rumpus room and just today I was wondering if maybe we needed a study......what a greedy little fella, just to put more junk in :rolleyes:..see - stupid.

And what really riles me is our local car industry - "The all new ZZ Falcodore - now with an extra 8kw for 300kw of grunt" Yeah, like 292 wasnt enough :rolleyes:.

And its not like we are tripping over planets stocked with water.

cheers

[bitingmidge]

Spot on Dazzler.

We actually can't do anything that will impact on the issue, but we are in the privileged position of being able to show how it's done if we really want to. We are wealthy enough to peel back a bit and set a real example.

Australia's total greenhouse gas production I understand, is equal to China's annual increase. That doesn't mean we should be stopping China unless we are prepared to take serious cuts, back to where they are now.

I heard today that in India, around 400 million people don't have electricity, so they are doing their bit! Seriously, are we to deny them power so we can go on driving our 292 kw stupid cars?

P
:cool:

[Wongo]

Increase the cost of electricity, water and petrol. Make it hurt when people use too much. Work on the demand not the supply. Allow only 1 car per family.

Build nuclear power stations, turn off all electrical at night, stop improving living standard, ban all new re-chargeable gadgets ….

[Mickj]

Yep, we're a wasteful species.
We have no considerations for future generations.
When we've burned up all the fossil fuels, we'll probably move to Nuclear. At current usage levels, the existing known Uranium ore deposits will give us between 30-70 years of energy. Not too sure what is left to burn after that??
I think we'll probably be better off with all the lights out anyway, that way we won't be able to see the mess we created.

[wheelinround]

Increase the cost of electricity, water and petrol. Make it hurt when people use too much. Work on the demand not the supply. Allow only 1 car per family.

Build nuclear power stations, turn off all electrical at night, stop improving living standard, ban all new re-chargeable gadgets ….

They already are doing this (additional charges) Wongo as people start to care and cut back the suppliers are putting up their costs to compensate for losses. I did a post on this some time ago.

Do it to business who are the biggest wasters. Hence Earth hour trouble is turning everything of for just 1 hr is a bigger waste as it take more juice to start and turn stuff back on Earth hr should be 4 hr min for business.

[MICKYG]

Thanks for the replies. The picture is not pretty no matter which way you look at it. Kev could have signed my dunny roll and achieved as much. There are a lot of things which could be looked at / implemented which are only for mans enjoyment that i believe would make a difference. The automobile and power generation seem to be big contributors amongst the myriads of other problems.

There is tremendous waste in every quarter which tends to contribute to a global problem. I noticed a blurb on China's Olympics and the background smog would choke a donkey. It seems as if the kangaroo's have it sorted by producing harmless gases. It is englightening to see others views. I suspect this may be another industry in the making.

Regards Mike:(

[Ashore]

Kev could have signed my dunny roll and achieved as much.
No if had only signed your dunny roll then we would not be up for the huge fines , like NZ was last year , if we don't reach these preset level cuts in emmisions :doh:
So he signes the Keyto Protocall, which gives us targets to reach in emmision reduction , why couldn't we have set and reached our own targets without the fines if we dont, the fines that you and I as tax payers will pay for and if we are fined will he take a pay cut to help pay these fines not on your nelly. :((
now lets see how smart he is when he words the "sorry statement", lord knows he stood up in parliment and asked jonny why he couldn't say sorry now he's in the box seat and I for one will be intrested in the wording and the outcome :cool:

[Lignum]

No if had only signed your dunny roll then we would not be up for the huge fines , like NZ was last year , if we don't reach these preset level cuts in emmisions...

Some common sense for a change.

Rudd told everyone when he signed that we are currently "over" the carbon credit target by 1% and that equals 6 million tones of carbon, and at (current) prices of $25 per tonne its $150 million of tax payers money out the window on day one.

The members who have signed wont have to pay untill 2012 and then the price per tonne of carbon is expected to quadruple. Some experts last week estimated a possible $2.5 billion bill we will owe in 2012.

Already Japan $15 billion, Italy $15 billion and Spain $9 billoin and little ol Ireland $450 million. Its a con job and Rudd has been sucked in trying to show Aussies and the world he is up to the job.

How many Australians will lose their jobs with large industries being forced to cut emissions or face massive fines because of this. Last week the Herald Sun ran a poll and 3000 voted and 88% said we should not have signed. So much for Labor using the mandate we gave to govern for the people, and instead sign up before the Governor Generals ink had dried.

[Andy Mac]

Had to laugh a few months back, watching the news on the idiot box. Newsreader with the face of concern reporting on the latest global warming figures, linked to carbon emissions etc. Then launches straight into the highlight of the night, practice day at Bathurst, complete with big grin. Images of burning rubber (and that was only the spectators:rolleyes:), thousands of gallons of fuel being burnt in the name of entertainment, and then add the transport of getting teams there, the R&D beforehand, the spectators driving there en masse etc. No pretence of a carbon neutral event there, but the newsreader was completely oblivious to the irony!

Cheers,

[elkangorito]

I fully expect to get negative "brownie points" for my ideas as follows;

1] "allow" people to die instead of trying to save every single life on the planet. It's not as if the human species is at immediate risk of extinction. Actually, the species is at risk if we continue in our current direction.

2] abolish or severely restrict the stockmarket. It needs much more control.

Here in Thailand, there is a difficult struggle going on. It's about the "poor people". Here, the perceived "poor" people are generally farmers. The majority of them haven't used & do not currently use machines in their toil. Most still rely on the humble Buffalo, which fertilizes at it works/walks. The Buffalo is actually considered to be an esteemed member of the family & is treated accordingly. For the "rich" Thai farmers (very few) who use machinery, some have reverted back to the buffalo due to the high cost of fuel (smart people).
What do "poor" people do in their spare time? They socialise, which usually involves drinking alcohol (easy to make) & lots of singing (don't need electricity to sing). I do this all the time & I don't get bored. As a matter of fact, I'm always waiting for the next social gathering.

Slowly though, Thailand is succumbing to the "western way" of life - consumerism. Slowly the farms are being turned into housing developments or industrial estates.
The Thai government is putting up strong resistance to western ideals but unfortunately, the damage has been done & many Thais are just as money hungry as westerners. This, in turn, creates an environment of consumerism & waste...let's not forget that the lust for money drives these things.

Less than 100 years ago, Thailand was barely touched by western culture & was essentially a pollution/waste free country. People lived happily & didn't heavily rely on money or energy to fulfill their "happiness" requirement.

Sadly, many Thais see their farmers as "low class" citizens. Speaking to my Thai students one day, I asked them, "What would happen if all the Thai farmers stopped work." The looks on their faces were amazing. After a while, a brave student made a comment, "Where would we get our food?"
Me: "The supermarket".
Them: "The food there is no good." (full of preservatives & other crap).
Me: "Are farmers important?"
Them: "Yes."
Me: "Please remember...no farmers, no "good" food."

I'm not a religious man but I do firmly believe that after George W &/or his mates have instigated WW3, the meek shall truly rule the world. It will be then, if we are smart enough, when we will realise the error of our polluting, energy wasting & otherwise profiteering ways.

[Ashore]

Already Japan $15 billion, Italy $15 billion and Spain $9 billoin and little ol Ireland $450 million. Its a con job and Rudd has been sucked in trying to show Aussies and the world he is up to the job.

He did it to apease the greens , if their preferences hadn't gone to labor then we would still have a liberal government, He didn't sign because it was good for you & me the average voter or it was good for Australia , it was a pay off to the Greens, and is it in the best intrests of Australia , well you judge when your tax dollars arn't spent on hospitals , edcuation, child care etc etc but are paid in unnecassary fines. :cool:

[rod@plasterbrok]

I agree that there is nothing wrong with reducing polution, and searching for replacements for fossil fuels that will one run out.

What I dissagree with is scaremongering by the AGW alarmist, that has governments in a panic making bad descisions to appear to do the right thing etc.

It would be a huge error to agree to any cut backs in emissions without China and India. You might ask why they too don't want to save the planet? They are smarter than us and wont be led by the masses scared out of their wits by mass hysteria.

If you choose to look at the other side of the AGW debate, that is the debate that the alarmists insist is not required as the facts are in, you will realise that the AGW fear is nothing but a hoax.

It is fast appearing as a means to redistribute wealth from developed countries to undeveloped countries through carbon credits schemes.

Any movement that has to rely on gross exaggeration to get their message accross through fear and then stifle any debate to the contrary, has got to be looked at with suspicion.

My BS radar is going off on AGW. Particularly when there is contrary scientific facts debunking many of the theories of AGW.
11 major items in the film "inconvenient truth" were proved to be either wrong or simply guesswork, leading to a court ruling in Britain saying that schools showing this film also had to show a disclaimer.

It realy bothers me that governments are prepared to waste billions of dollars where that money could and should be spent in better areas.

[dazzler]

Spot on Rod, and if we are wrong we'll just move over to that other
planet :rolleyes:.

[pawnhead]

The technicians need to work harder on traffic light technology. They should flash amber on side streets when traffic volumes are low. You could treat them as a stop/give way sign then.


It seems as if the kangaroo's have it sorted by producing harmless gases. We should be eating them. The country is being over run by them.
Get rid of all the methane producing cows, forget about 'land management' issues and just let the roos run wild. Then just get hunters and trappers to provide our McRooburgers.

The country is ideally suited to them, and they're delicious when marinated properly. Very tender, and it's hard to tell the difference from beef.

edit: Kangaroo farts could fight global warming (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/12/06/2111509.htm)

[LotteBum]

A lot of interesting points in this thread...

The very thing that bothers me is that most people seem to rely quite heavily on the government doing something about the situation through legislating etc. Whilst I believe this is definitely something that needs to happen, I'm also of the opinion that individuals (including business owners) need to do something to prove their commitment to the cause.

My partner and I had a discussion with his parents just the other night about environmental issues. Now don't get me wrong, my in-laws are good people and I love them to bits. But they don't seem to understand that almost $400 per quarter (for two people) for electricity is obscence. They live in a large house, have absolutely no energy saving bulbs and leave lights on for their ageing dog. Why not buy at least SOME green power? Our electricity bill averages around $50 per quarter, and the same goes for our gas bill. This includes $10 per quarter worth of green electricity. I feel awful about our measly $40 per annum contribution, and it is something I am trying to fix (if only I could actually get through to Origin Energy without being on hold for donkeys every time I call them).

To get back on topic, if I were in charge, I'd review Australia's car industry and immediately do something about the tax incentives given to businesses and those with business vehicles for driving unnecessarily large cars, not to mention driving lots of k's. Further to this, I would abolish all fuel subsidies and replace them with an emissions tax of 20%. I would also impose an emissions tax on new cars, based on how 'green' they are (taking into consideration production, recyclability, lifespan etc). That would get a lot of people (individuals AND business) thinking carefully the next time they buy a new car.

I would also invest heavily in cycling infrastructure. Where cycle lanes don't exist, I would not hesitate to cut into traffic lanes in order to accommodate cyclists. I would also abolish all import taxes and GST on new bicycles, as I believe there needs to be more incentive for people to get out of cars and onto bikes.

There are lots of other things I'd do as well, such as limiting logging, providing more incentives for people to 'go green' etc. but there are simply too many to list.

Am I a bitch or what?

Cheers,
Lotte

[pawnhead]

But they don't seem to understand that almost $400 per quarter (for two people) for electricity is obscence. That's nothing. Al Gore had a bill of US $1,359 for one month.

Of course Mr 'save the environment' himself would rather that we forget about his "Inconvenient Truth (http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_102512.asp)" :rolleyes:

[silentC]

$400 per quarter (for two people) for electricity is obscence
I was talking to my neighbours (two adults, one toddler one baby) on the weekend. Their electricity bill for last quarter was over $1,000. They attribute it to the massive 3 phase ducted air conditioner they installed when they built the house. They use it for heating (not really required for cooling in this part of the world).

Ours is not quite that much, but it's a hell of a lot more than $50 per quarter, so I'd like to know how you manage that. Probably 1/3 of ours goes to running the on site sewerage system and the water pumps. That still leaves us with a bill around 9 to 10 times what yours is.

My parents' bill is usually around the $180 to $200 mark per quarter.

[echnidna]

A lot of interesting points in this thread...

if I were in charge, I'd review Australia's car industry and immediately do something about the tax incentives given to businesses and those with business vehicles for driving unnecessarily large cars, not to mention driving lots of k's. Further to this, I would abolish all fuel subsidies and replace them with an emissions tax of 20%. I would also impose an emissions tax on new cars, based on how 'green' they are (taking into consideration production, recyclability, lifespan etc). That would get a lot of people (individuals AND business) thinking carefully the next time they buy a new car.

I would also invest heavily in cycling infrastructure. Where cycle lanes don't exist, I would not hesitate to cut into traffic lanes in order to accommodate cyclists. I would also abolish all import taxes and GST on new bicycles, as I believe there needs to be more incentive for people to get out of cars and onto bikes.

There are lots of other things I'd do as well, such as limiting logging, providing more incentives for people to 'go green' etc. but there are simply too many to list.

Am I a bitch or what?

Cheers,
Lotte

No you're not a bitch but there are further considerations needed about aspects of your suggestions

lots of km's are necessary in regional australia.
A lot of business km's are unavoidable

especially those areas without alternate transport.

cycling in the country is impractical given the often signifigant distances involved

the emissions tax is totally unnecessary as the governments are reaping huge income from fuel to the extent they have are major cash surpluses.
Increase taxes, any sort, the pig trough just gets bigger

But the general thrust of yoiur arguments are sound.

[Greg Ward]

Suppose I lived in Russia, around the steppes, or in the frozen wastes of norther Canada, It's damn cold, some years we may get a grain crop, but it's problematic. No-one lives here unless they have a chilly disposition.

Global warming will bring so many more of our cold savannah areas into cultivation, we will be eating grain three times a day and raising Waygu beef on the leftovers.

Winter will bring tourists to hunt ducks and fish in our no-longer-frozen creeks.

Obesity levels will fall as we won't need tubby women to keep us warm in the winter.

We will be able to grow trees and get carbon credits from the rich countries

We will be able to set up holiday homes in Antarctica to take advantage of the summer 24 hour daylight

if all of Antarctica's ice melts, sea levels will raise around 100 metres, which will provide more ocean playground for fish and seals and whales..... we are so human focussed

Elsewhere
The Gold Coast and its theme parks will be under water as will be the current harbourside homes of the rich and famous..... and that's a bad thing????

It don't sound all bad to me. I'm sick of the negative whingers. Let's focus on the good things global warming will bring.

Regards
Greg

[Gra]

It don't sound all bad to me. I'm sick of the negative whingers. Let's focus on the good things global warming will bring.

Regards
Greg

yeah I've always wanted a beachside home :U:U

[echnidna]

oh bum I'll hafta move coz I'm only 85 metres above sea level now.

Does the warming mean the Taswegians will be growing mangos and bananas?

[silentC]

Here you go, you can have a look at how the world will look after a 14m sea level rise. This is Sydney harbour but it's like Google maps, you can go anywhere in the world and select a sea level rise to a max of 14m.

http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=-33.8453,151.2268&z=5&m=14

[silentC]

At 14 metres, Holland is gone. So is Venice.

[woodbe]

That's ok. I've already seen them :) :) :D

[SPIRIT]

people are dumb we live in a new estate we all have big blocks of land 3a
of the 20 houses only 3 or so face north, most put thier houses to face the street were most have thier windows the only bad thing about this they face west ,,hot in summer cold in winter
the only heater we have is wood we only use this about 16 weeks a year and only at night

most people will not see the sea level rise the mozzies will have wiped out most of the population my then

the answer has to be simple get rid of democercy get us some good dictators because no goverment is going to change anything if it lower our standed of liveing because they will loose the next election

change will come but only when the G/w effect out standed of liveing by then it will be a lot harder to fix

[dazzler]

the answer has to be simple get rid of democercy get us some good dictators

I vote for Wild Dingo!

[SPIRIT]

I vote for Wild Dingo!booly hell the speaches would take for ever:doh:

[echnidna]

good dictators eventually become corrupted by their power.

There is little if any dissension about temperature rises among scientists but considerable disagreement about the effects it will have.

As to the sea levels rising 100 metres.

There was considerable disagreement about the extent of sea level rises in the scientific community. A Warmer earth means more evaporation so more water in the atmoshphere. So the seas may not rise much.

[LotteBum]

lots of km's are necessary in regional australia.

Sure they are. But do those km's have to be driven in a 6 cylinder car? What's stopping businesses and governments from purchasing smaller cars? Incentives to buy cheap, ?????? Australian built cars (not a big fan personally).


A lot of business km's are unavoidable

A lot of business km's are also avoidable. I'm not saying that everyone should stop driving full stop, but there have got to be ways of minimising travel by car.


cycling in the country is impractical given the often signifigant distances involved

A lot of short trips in cars can easily be replaced with bikes. As a matter of fact, it is estimated that 50% of all car trips are less than 5km. That's disgraceful. Anyone who lives within 20km of their place of work, has showering facilities and does not require a car during the day at work, should be able to ride their bike to work - BOTH ways, EVERY day. 20km should take no more than 1 hour at a leisurely pace, of which most people are capable (and if they're not, then it's probably a good idea to at least start!). I think I'm being reasonable - I'm not saying that people should ditch their cars and replace all car trips with bike trips - rather that if those of us who CAN make a difference TRY to make a difference, it would have a huge impact on the situation.


the emissions tax is totally unnecessary as the governments are reaping huge income from fuel to the extent they have are major cash surpluses.Increase taxes, any sort, the pig trough just gets bigger

Good point. Why not decrease income tax and company tax and instead increase the fuel excise then?

To those of you wondering what we do to mimimise our energy bill, we don't do a heck of a lot. We live in suburbia, about 8km from Brisbane, we have town gas (ie. cheap as chips) and our house is lit by mostly energy saving bulbs. I have a feeling that the fact that we've got a gas hot water system helps too..? We have two reverse cycle inverter air conditioners (both here when we bought the place and had absolutely no impact on our decision to buy) - one in bedroom, one in lounge room. The lounge room system gets used for maybe 10 hours per year (all in February of course) and we use the one in the bedroom sparingly and ONLY for cooling purposes (ie. summer).

I'm really not sure what else contributes to us having such cheap electricity bills??

Cheers,
Lotte

[astrid]

lots of rants here not many idea's

1.reduce the use of cars
this can be done by allowing lots of office workers to work 2-3 days from home. you can allow computer access
this would be especilly good for parents so you kill two birds with one stone
Kids get more parent time and can be picked up so parents dont have to leave kids in expensive daycare and after school care.
so parents save money and can afford solar panels and water tanks.

2.turn of or dim lights in office building, most have big windows and the lower light is more pleasant to work in.
3. set thermostat controls in winter you can put on a jumper.
the number of office workers that strip off when they get in is stupid.

unfortunatly these simple ideas need management on board.and some sense
we've just started a recycling system at work.
were asked to wash our yoghert pots before we bin them.
so idiots are using 3 ltrs of water to recycle a yoghert pot:roll:
4. encorage business to use conference phones instead of flying everywhere.
they'll get used to it

astrid

[RETIRED]

lots of rants here not many idea's


the number of office workers that strip off when they get in is stupid.

astridDamn!!!! I have been working in the wrong places.:D

[astrid]

I knew that would get a bite:U
astrid

[journeyman Mick]

..................As a matter of fact, it is estimated that 50% of all car trips are less than 5km..................

I live in a regional area (a bit more urban than Echidna's area though) and 100% of my trips are more than 5km. 5kms will get me to the next intersection.:roll:


Mick

[rod@plasterbrok]

You guys ever considered that AGW is a load of bull and that we may have to do nothing.

Although an orderly reduction in polution is comendable and should be encouraged.

I read both sides of the argument and there are many scientist with valid points disputing AGW. People need to take a deep breath and not jump to conclusions simply based on flaky computer models that just can not predict accurately.

Scaring the population into reacting to a problem that may not exist is sensless. The scientific proof will dissmiss AGW as a farce in time, or a lot quicker if people had an open mind.

The temperature peaked in 1988 and has not increased since!

We are not all going to fry in the next 100 years.

[astrid]

so why are the icecaps and glasiers melting? any other theories?
astrid

[dazzler]

You guys ever considered that AGW is a load of bull and that we may have to do nothing.

Although an orderly reduction in polution is comendable and should be encouraged.

I read both sides of the argument and there are many scientist with valid points disputing AGW. People need to take a deep breath and not jump to conclusions simply based on flaky computer models that just can not predict accurately.

Scaring the population into reacting to a problem that may not exist is sensless. The scientific proof will dissmiss AGW as a farce in time, or a lot quicker if people had an open mind.

The temperature peaked in 1988 and has not increased since!

We are not all going to fry in the next 100 years.

Which scientists, with valid peer reviewed papers, are you referring to :?

[Lignum]

so why are the icecaps and glasiers melting? any other theories?
astrid
Havnt we already had an iceage? I wonder what made the ice melt back then:rolleyes:

[ernknot]

Common guys, scaring people shirtless about global warming is good for many businesses, pollies and media. They love it. I will keep driving my car, heat the house with wood, use plastic bags, contribute to the hole in the ozone layer ( can't help it after drinking home brew and having bangers and onions from the bbq) If the world is going to end I will make sure I go out happy and contented.

[Lignum]

use plastic bags

Like the scaremongering with plastic bags. They come in conventional and bio-degradable varieties, conventional take around 10 years to break down and bio-degradable break down within 12 months. But the big con job green ones are made from polypropylene, which is a by product of oil refining and they never ever break down. Go figure

[dazzler]

Havnt we already had an iceage? I wonder what made the ice melt back then:rolleyes:

The last major ice age ended when the isthmyth between north and south america rose up due to tectonic plate movement which disrupted the sea flow and caused it to warm as the water was heated more around the equator.

And we have had lots of ice ages, tassie had one with glaciers n all around 30 thousand years ago.

They werent really an issue 30 thousand years ago as the earth didnt have to support 6.6 billion humans as it does now. :rolleyes:

[Mickj]

....Build nuclear power stations ….


The problem with Nuclear is that, at current usage levels, all known reserves will give us an estimated 30-70 years of power.

The question is, if we go down the nuclear path, will we

Spend the extra time we have developing a proper renewable resouce,
-or-
Will we grab the money and run?

[astrid]

actualy re nuclear,
Its worst than that.
They take years to build and have to be decommissioned after about 25 years.
So then the problems are
1) where to get rid of the contaminated rubble, (just look at chernoble and five mile island)
2) in 30 years, whos going to invest in another if theres only uranium left for another 30-40 years
I think the Nuclear champions are in the "take the money and run" group.
After all, they wont be around to deal with the mess will they?

I find it amusing, that the same lot who blather on about the sacrifices our grandparents generation made in the wars, to give us a free and democratic future, are usually the same ones that wont countinence much smaller sacrifices for their grandchildrens future.
(abolutly no disrespect intended to veterans)
Astrid

[MICKYG]

This is an interesting topic. Once the dollars are taken out of the equation I am of the opinion that the equation may change considerably. There is a reasonable share of misinformation attached to this particular subject which we all have to wade through. The link below is weather records for a long period of time and it has been pointed out that it must be the average of same to be of use.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~jacob/worldtp.html

Enjoy Xmas everywhere this time around, perhaps the sky will have fallen in by the time next Xmas comes around. PS: Its still well below here in winter and we still get our one month of summer every year.:U:U:U

Regards Mike

[silentC]

You guys ever considered that AGW is a load of bull and that we may have to do nothing.

YouTube - Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See

[Gra]

You guys ever considered that AGW is a load of bull and that we may have to do nothing.

Global warming is happening, that has been agreed by most scientist (Just like evolution), but the argument now is, is it man causing the global warming or is it a natural accurance..

[BobL]

Here you go, you can have a look at how the world will look after a 14m sea level rise. This is Sydney harbour but it's like Google maps, you can go anywhere in the world and select a sea level rise to a max of 14m.

http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=-33.8453,151.2268&z=5&m=14

FWIW this model of ocean encroachment is based purely on topography which is very simplistic. Every metre rise in sea level creates a loss of up to 100 m of coastline due to coastal erosion. It will only be less than 100 m if there is rock in the way.

[silentC]

Yes there is a note to that effect on the site. The idea is just to get people thinking about what a relatively small rise in sea level will do to the coastline. He says he deliberately avoided the worst case because he didn't want it to be dismissed as alarmist. I wanted to see what it would look like at 100m but he only went to 14.

The other thing it doesn't handle is places that are already below sea level.

[silentC]

the argument now is, is it man causing the global warming or is it a natural accurance..
That's the point of the video. These are all 'row arguments' which are debating something that we have no control over. What we should be debating is whether or not to try and do something about it.

[Big Shed]

For those of you interested in some facts, rather than melodramatic hype, this link (http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/) makes interesting reading.

[silentC]

I've always wondered: if scientists know so much about the earth's climate and atmosphere, how come they can't predict the weather?

Facts are interesting things aren't they? One person's facts are another person's hype. It has been slowly dawning on me over the last 40 odd years that there are a great many things that nobody knows for sure. Another thing is that there is always more to a story than meets the eye.

[Big Shed]

I've always wondered: if scientists know so much about the earth's climate and atmosphere, how come they can't predict the weather?



Agreed silentc, it is one of my favourite replies to those people quoting the magical "2.3deg warmer in 20 years" - how come the same science cannot give us an accurate 1day forecast - let alone an accurate 4 day forecast:doh:.

[BobL]

As a physicist let me correct some misconceptions being put up here and give you some perspectives that are missing.

Firstly, is it man made global happening? The consensus of experts says yes and that is good enough for me. Those that say no are mostly crackpots or have vested interests.

Ice bergs melting: Yes they have melted before as have the ice caps (our lab works on polar ice and snow over the last few glacial cycles). What we do know is this has happened fairly slowly and life generally had time to adapt to the changes. What we are doing is forcing the climate system beyond it's capacity to adapt. The coral reefs will die (sorry - ARE dying (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/318/5857/1712)), not adapt as will WA Jarrah and Karri.

Energy supplies: We should not be looking around for magic bullets we should spread the development of new energy generation across a range of technologies.

Bio-fuels: Would seem to work well in low population areas and Oz Acacias/Eucalpyts are ideal for this but we have no infrastructure (and it brings with it the exciting possibilities of exoctic acacia timber availability as well!). 1/10th of the arable land in Australia would supply all our fuel needs. In contrast if Germany wanted to supply its own fuel all the arable land in the country would be required. Tropical countries are attracted to biofuels but cutting down rain forest to plant biofuels is a dumb idea.

Nuclear: We have enough Uranium for about 50 years if ALL we use is nuclear. That is nuts and as big a squandering of resources as the oil waste. A sensible use of nuclear is as a base power source makes sense in countries where population density and other supplies are insufficient. If it is spread over time it could last 200 years and ultimately there is breeder reactor technology. I did my PhD on a natural fossil breeder reactor (http://www.oklo.curtin.edu.au/) and nuclear waste disposal - this is a serious but solvable situation and a smaller, easier and a shorter term problem than CO2 sequestration. Fourth generation nuclear plants (http://www.gen-4.org/) will also be inherently more efficient and safer than present day reactors. Then there is Thorium as a nuclear fuel (which Oz has 40% of the worlds known supply). We just need to hang in long enough for fusion which currently has a next generation reactor being built in France. Do I see future based entirely on nuclear - definitely not, but it is already playing an important role in many countries which have little else and we should be doing more with it.

Solar Energy and Hydrogen: We should set up huge solar energy plants in hot areas cracking water to make hydrogen for fuel. The price (even after economies of scale) will be $5-$8 a litre energy equivalent so we need more efficient cars. Cars in cities and townes can run on electricity but hybrids will be needed for long range use and for planes. Storage is a big problem. Fourth generation nuclear that make hydrogen direct from superheated water is another source of this important fuel.

Construction: Did you know that after burning fossil fuels, making concrete is the next biggest CO2 producer? Every ton of concrete makes a tone of CO2. We already have the technology to use materials that generate 1/10th of this and this is widely used in Europe but guess who controls this in Oz?

Finally here is something to think about that shows how serious the problem is. To get CO2 back to an even level in the atmosphere using present day technologies you will only be allowed to have ONE of these per year (http://www.manicore.com/anglais/).
- Short intercontinental plane trip
- Use 3200 kWh electricity (22000 kWh in France or Sweden) (100 W light bulb for 1 hr/day)
- A third of a small car
- Large plasma screen TV,
- 2 tons of concrete (house requires 10 tons),
- Drive 5000 km - city traffic in a subcompact car
- Drive 1500 km - in a large 4WD or V8
- Heat/Cool a medium sized home for 3 months

I think this puts things into perspective. What few people realize is that it is a lot more serious than changing to a few low energy use light bulbs and buying a smaller car. It's about changing everything we do and what we do it with. Like the guy on SilentC movie (who is that BTW?) the alternative is far less attractive.

My biggest concern is that all kids of today need to know more science and maths than ever to tackle this problem but few want to study these important subjects.

[Big Shed]

So, how can I drive 5000km in a third of a small car?:rolleyes:

[BobL]

I've always wondered: if scientists know so much about the earth's climate and atmosphere, how come they can't predict the weather?


The answer is in your question. Weather and climate are two different thing. Climate is long term weather is very short term. Much of the past climate is written in the geological record of the earth and is the basis for study and interpretation. Only extreme weather events register and then for a short time.

[Waldo]

G'day BobL,

An excellent post and even better to read it from someone in the industry and more than qualified to give your 2¢ worth. :2tsup:

Unfortunately it still won't convince a relative of mine. :( We just have to agree to disagree. :shrug: But I'll still use and refer to your post.

[BobL]

For those of you interested in some facts, rather than melodramatic hype, this link (http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/) makes interesting reading.

Wow "junkscience.com" - a respected and well cited scientific resource I must add that to my "must read" science list. NOT!

FWIW, here is the credentials of the editor of junkscience.com: Steven J. Milloy is: the founder and publisher of JunkScience.com and CSRwatch.com ; an investment adviser to the Free Enterprise Action Fund (http://www.freeenterpriseactionfund.com/) ; and a columnist for FoxNews.com

And what about the Free Enterprise Action Fund? Here is a quote from their website"
"Left-wing social and political activists are harnessing the power, resources and influence of publicly-owned corporations to advance their social and political agendas. (1) Frustrated by their failure to advance their agendas in the public political process, these activists use capitalism against capitalism under the guise of “corporate social responsibility” and “socially responsible investing.” (2) Their movement threatens shareholder value and the American system of free enterprise."

Interesting what you can find if you dig a little.

I could debunk his junk but I have real science to get on with! :D

[rod@plasterbrok]

Time will tell, I refuse to be pannicked by outlandish false claims about AGW.

It is easer to believe when the media will not give the other side a mention. People have claimed AGW is a foregone conclusion and "the debate is over". In science the debate is never over. There is not one piece of concrete non debatable conclusive bit of evidence that confirms AGw not a single one.

Every argument is opinion based on opinion or computer models that are flakey and faulty. Any one can point to an event and blame it on AGW.

The Globe has warmed and cooled forever and will continue to do so forever. We are better spending money on dealing with the results of climate change rather than trying to effect it. For sure as hell there will be global cooling sometime in the future.

I suggest anyone who simply reads the newspaper or follows the mob to form their opinion should take time to read the science disputing AGW.

For many, regardless of any credible evidence produced to the contrary will not convince them that AGW is a fraud. Only time will tell.

[BobL]

So, how can I drive 5000km in a third of a small car?:rolleyes:

For three years you buy a 1/3 of a car THEN you can drive it 5000 km a year - BUT the rest of the time you have to live like 3rd world person and burn small animal dung fires for cooking

[Big Shed]

For three years you buy a 1/3 of a car THEN you can drive it 5000 km a year - BUT the rest of the time you have to live like 3rd world person and burn small animal dung fires for cooking

So, I guess that means I can't use my chainsaw mill either then?:D

[silentC]

Weather and climate are two different thing.
Yeah I understand that. There are so many variables involved in producing weather that it would be virtually impossible to accurately model what is going on now, let alone what might happen tomorrow. It's just that a few people seem to be quite adamant about a number of things that I believe are not really all that predictable. But then if scientists prefaced everything with "we believe" they would just sound uncertain and unreliable - which is ironic...


who is that BTW?
http://www.youtube.com/wonderingmind42

[silentC]

There is not one piece of concrete non debatable conclusive bit of evidence that confirms AGw not a single one.
So I take it you have a piece of concrete non-debatable conclusive evidence that denies AGW?

I dunno, you're still arguing about something you have no control over. It's just a silly and pointless debate I think, except at an academic level. The concerns have been raised by the scientific community, all we have to decide is whether to do anything about it or not.

[Mickj]

Its all about managing Risk.

When you weigh up the probability of AGW against the consequences,
you realise that its too risky to do nothing.

Of the 4 scenarios i.e. Action/No Action -Vs- Fact/Hype,
Taking no action when AGW is a fact has the biggest negative impact.

Is it worth the risk ?

[silentC]

That's what it boils down to.

[BobL]

Rod,

For the first time in human history we face a serious dilemma. You are right there is no single incontrovertible fact (and there probably won't be for some people until some of the houses start falling into the Swan River) - there is no magic pointer saying this is it - the bit of evidence that can't be refuted. Nevertheless there is more than sufficient evidence in the geological record and the current trends and changes, for the consensus taken amongst the worlds experts about that it is happening.

What do you expect them to do - nothing - wait till the changes are irreversible? I actually think it is probably already too late and we will be seriously affected and the best we can hope for is a mitigation of the effects.

What most people do not realise is this is a HUGE problem. An individual (even an expert) simply can't learn about or decide about man made global in a lifetime. It is such a difficult problem that it has required a collective consensus amongst experts and we will have to decide at some point to put our hands in their decisions - just like we do with doctors (yes they are sometimes wrong). I am very familiar with how international level scientists operate, they are not sheep - they absolutely love proving each other wrong and do so at the drop of a hat. If half, or a quarter or even 1/10 of the worlds GW experts were still arguing about it i'd be slightly skeptical. I am never 100% convinced of anything but in this case I'm about 99% convinced.

Cheers

[Big Shed]

Its all about managing Risk.

When you weigh up the probability of AGW against the consequences,
you realise that its too risky to do nothing.

Of the 4 scenarios i.e. Action/No Action -Vs- Fact/Hype,
Taking no action when AGW is a fact has the biggest negative impact.

Is it worth the risk ?

You can't manage a risk that you can't quantify.

Like everything else in life this is about cost/benefit analysis. The problem is that there are a lot of arguments muddyig the waters, making it hard to quantify the cost.

One of the most vocal persons on global warming in our local Landcare group is also the one that probably produces the most greenhouse gases, having made numerous o/s plane trips in the last few years.
That same person was talking about buying a Toyota Prius to save the planet!
So a question of "do as I say, not do as I do".

The minute that people like Al Gore stop spending half their life in an aeroplane and stops spending umpteen times the average on using energy, is the time I will take this whole argument a bit more serious.

In the meantime I will try to do my bit without getting too anal about it.:2tsup:

[silentC]

The minute that people like Al Gore stop spending half their life in an aeroplane and stops spending umpteen times the average on using energy, is the time I will take this whole argument a bit more serious.
With all due respect, that's a crazy point of view. Why would you base your own opinions and decisions on the arguably hypocritical behaviour of other people?

[BobL]

So, I guess that means I can't use my chainsaw mill either then?:D

Well there are swings and roundabouts on home milling.

If I mill a street tree outside my house and replace it with another that is relatively low CO2 emission milling. I haven't had to drive anywhere to get the timber and can use it on the spot. If I have to drive 300 km to do it then it's debatable.

Unfortunately commercial milling is currently high CO2 emission even using plantation timber but stuff all of this comes from chainsaws. Trucks and tractors will have to be biofuel based - not hard but will cost more. Light rail may come back for plantations. I have no idea what they can do for the replacements of 2-stroke motors. Would I stop home milling if the price of petrol was $3 litre, probably not even $5 litre would be OK.

I am a little concerned that two-stroke will for political reasons be singled out quickly for "special treatment" - ie they will be banned or licenced. BTW, I already own a battery powered mover which for our hanky sized lawn works great.

In the long run I am not worried about home milling - if it comes down to it I will build a small rail mill running a small biofuel powered 4 stroke engine.

BTW There should be no way that it should be cheaper to import softwood from overseas than to grow our own here but that is another story.

[dazzler]

Which scientists, with valid peer reviewed papers, are you referring to :?


well :)

[rod@plasterbrok]

I don't disagree that finding alternative fuel, reducing polution etc is not a good thing.

There has been too many outlandish claims made by the AGW believers to be credible. These claims completely devalue their argument. The claim that the debate is over sounds like a petulant child that is trying to protect a lie.

The very fact that the science is not conclusive means the debate is well and truly NOT OVER.

The outlandish claims of 100m sea rises etc are complete bull **** and designed to scare people into believing something that has not been proven (just like your claim of houses falling into the Swan River). Many natural events are being claimed as a result of AGW that are just not true. The argument that we should be acting NOW etc. just in case its true is also a scare tactic. So that when it doesnt happen they can claim success.

Even if the world warms by 2 deg there will be many that benefit from warming. 2 deg rise will not melt the poles. The effects of AGW are grossly over estimated to scare people into action.

If the AGW believers were more open to view and debate the science and be more realistic in there estimates etc. they would have more credibility in my book. Until then it is just a theory yet to be proved or demonstrated to be anything other than a normal natural event.

See this http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002

[silentC]

OK Rod, fill us in on your education and experience that makes you able to come to these decisions in the face of what other people are saying?

This is what staggers me - the whole business of climate science is so complicated that even the experts can't be sure about very much but a guy who hangs plaster for a living knows enough about it to dismiss what they say as bull ****. You obviously know something we don't, so share it with us mate.

Give us some of the hard facts and evidence that you say are lacking from the other side of the debate. Watch all of those videos by wonderingmind42 (http://wonderingmind42.com./) and then give us the benefit of your thoughtful and logical analysis of the holes in his argument.

Unless you can do that, you're just making outlandish claims.

[rod@plasterbrok]

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.

[silentC]

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.
Jeez, you're an expert on scientific peer review as well. You really are hiding your light under a bushel.

[rod@plasterbrok]

Silent C I don't profess to be an expert no more than yourself. I just see the AGW argument from a different view point than yourself.

No expert on peer review either. Just an obsever making a comment on what I see and read and what seems credible as opposed to what seems to be manipulated to prove a cause.

I think I have expained perfectly well above as to how my view point has been reached.

I have asked others here to prove AGW is real, they can only point to facts that don't make AGW conclusive in any way.

Irrespective of my trade or educational experience I can form a rational opinion based on information available from both sides. I consider myself open minded enough not to be swayed by outlandish claims made to pannic.

I certainly don't see the need to post heaps of links here of information that has influenced my view. Simply because no one thing has swayed me on balance I believe the AGW case is not even close to being conclusive.

[Big Shed]

With all due respect, that's a crazy point of view. Why would you base your own opinions and decisions on the arguably hypocritical behaviour of other people?

So if the leader of a global religion publicly flouted 5 of the 10 commandments, you would therefore not think less of that religion? Very noble of you!

[silentC]

Well the thing is that it's not Al Gore's religion, is it? He's just a bloke who tried to popularise some of the issues. The fact that he's a hypocrite doesn't change the message at all. If you look at him and say "well, here's this bloke telling us the world is about to end but he's doing nothing about it, so why should I" it's a bit like my kids saying, after being caught writing on the walls, "but such and such did it too" as if that makes it OK. Why would you want to base your own behaviour on someone who you clearly don't have a great deal of respect for? It makes no sense to me.

[Big Shed]

Well there are swings and roundabouts on home milling.


Just as there are on global warming.



If I mill a street tree outside my house and replace it with another that is relatively low CO2 emission milling. I haven't had to drive anywhere to get the timber and can use it on the spot. If I have to drive 300 km to do it then it's debatable.


Yes but what about that chainsaw?




Unfortunately commercial milling is currently high CO2 emission even using plantation timber but stuff all of this comes from chainsaws. Trucks and tractors will have to be biofuel based - not hard but will cost more. Light rail may come back for plantations. I have no idea what they can do for the replacements of 2-stroke motors. Would I stop home milling if the price of petrol was $3 litre, probably not even $5 litre would be OK.


Biofuel? Have you seen what is happening to the world price of corn? Shot through the roof because we are using it to produce ethanol, in the mean time poor people can't afford to eat. Where's the ethics in that?



I am a little concerned that two-stroke will for political reasons be singled out quickly for "special treatment" - ie they will be banned or licenced.


2 strokes are already banned, at least for outboard motors, in the US.



BTW, I already own a battery powered mover which for our hanky sized lawn works great.


Now that is really wooly thinking Bob, have you considered the overall environmental impact of that battery mower? Agreed it doesn't happen in your backyard, but those lead-acid batteries have to be produced somewhere. Bit like people telling me I shouldn't burn a wood heater, then they use split system a/c running on electricty produced from dirty brown coal in the LaTrobe Valley.



In the long run I am not worried about home milling - if it comes down to it I will build a small rail mill running a small biofuel powered 4 stroke engine.


See biofuel argument above.



BTW There should be no way that it should be cheaper to import softwood from overseas than to grow our own here but that is another story.


Well at least we are agreed on that:2tsup:

[Big Shed]

Well the thing is that it's not Al Gore's religion, is it?



You could have fooled me:o

And I didn't say I wouldn't or shouldn't do anything about it, I said I would have more respect for the argument..............

[silentC]

I think I have expained perfectly well above as to how my view point has been reached.
Your viewpoint appears to have been reached by dismissing what the majority of world climate scientists believe as hype or bull **** designed to suck us in to some scam - the purpose of which escapes me. I just want to know either what information you have that makes you so adamant that it is a fraud, or what credentials you have that make your opinion worth listening too. You keep talking about hard evidence, so where is yours?

All others have done here is point to what the people who are paid to do this stuff for a living have had to say. Why do you feel that you know more than they do? The thing is that after the event, it's going to be too late. Saying that climate scientists just want us to spend money on the problem so that when it doesn't eventuate they can claim responsibility is just about the strangest notion I've heard.

It's pointless trying to decide whether this problem is man-made, or whether it's going to cause all of these catastrophes. By the time we work that out, it will be too late to do anything about it. While you're still running around trying to prove that climate change is a scam, or that it's not man made, or trying to disprove whatever it is that you're actually objecting to, if it's going to happen, it will already be happening already and you'll have missed the boat.

Watch those videos mate, and see if you can pick holes in them. I was sceptical about it all myself until I watch the first one. Then I realised that we're arguing about the wrong thing.

[silentC]

I said I would have more respect for the argument
But it's not his argument. The people making the argument are a world away from Al Gore. He is just carrying their message. What if they are right? Are you going to say "well, I didn't accept their argument because Al Gore is a hypocrite"? Oh, well that's alright then, as long as you had a good reason.

[Big Shed]

OK silentc, so you are now a true believer, great. But what are you doing about it, or more importantly what can we all do about it?

I am not being cynical here, nor am I playing the man, as some are, but I am asking this question in all sincerity.

I think one of the most important things any government can do is help their citizens make informed decisions when buying appliances, use energy etc.

What I would like to see is a star system, like the energy and water using stars, but that address the whole environmental cost of buying and using a particular appliance.

For instance, in Bob's example above, what is the cost to the environment of producing that battery operated lawnmower, what is the cost to the environment of using it.

Would be good if we could make an informed choice on whether that Toyota Prius is really more environmentally friendly than that Jeep Cherokee, whether that solar panel actually will produce more energy in its' projected lifetime than it cost to produce and so forth.

I would venture to suggest that sales of plasma screens would plummet overnight:rolleyes:

(Oh and it would be nice if someone could calculate the tons of CO2 produced by the Bali Conference, both by the millions of airmiles to get the candidates there and back, and by the hot air produced at the conference. I bet all those candidates had their aircons going flat out, and there seemed to be a million notebooks switched on!)

[rod@plasterbrok]

I don't dismiss the view point of the scientists. I just believe they are too quick to make it a conclusive irrefutable fact.

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.

I don't have any credentials, nor do I need them to form a view based of both sides of the argument.

There are many with vested interests in both sides of the argument including the media. That does'nt make them right or wrong.

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.

I just refuse to be swayed by hype and false claims.
I have watched the videos and have seen nothing yet that would change my view. My view is really very simple, I don't claim to have any irrefutable evidence to dissprove AGW I simply don't believe there is any to prove there is and that on the balance of evidence produced by both sides it is least likely warming is caused by Co2. The shrillness of the AGW lobby and their refusal to look at the science of the other side plays a large part of my forming that view.

[silentC]

I never said I was a true believer. I'm an agnostic - I don't believe anything :wink:

All I said was that, until I watched those videos, I was debating the wrong issue. I think he has a good point and it comes down to acceptable level of risk. As he said, you don't buy car insurance believing you will have a crash, you buy it so that IF you have a crash, you don't go broke.

So yes, I think we need to do something about it, in case they are right, because the consequences if they are right and we do nothing are too severe. As for what I'm doing, well, I've only just come around to that viewpoint, so give me time :)

[Waldo]

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.

[Mickj]

Remember the hole in the Ozone??
Well its stilll there, but it is shrinking.
We saw that CFCs were causing it some damage, so we made some changes. And Guess what? ... we still have airconditioners, refrigerators and yes we still have hairspray(not that I need it).

I'm not saying that fixing the AGW problem is as easy, but there are some very simple changes that we can make to ease the problem.

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.

[rod@plasterbrok]

Yes the under developed countries also see benefits. Billions of dollars from developed countries paid in fines without a single drop in emissions. In fact emissions continue to rise because the UDC's are not under any pressure to reduce emissions.

Just a shift in wealth?

I wonder.

[astrid]

Go SilentC and BobL
Its a favorite trick of junk scientists and their devotees to introduce red herrings when the Science gets tough.
I note there have been no comments on Bobs "outing" of the backers of the junk science site.

Do we have an ostrich icon?
Astrid

[BobL]

The very fact that the science is not conclusive means the debate is well and truly NOT OVER.
Unfortunately very few things, including science, are ever conclusive - you can never prove anything right - you can only prove something wrong. yes the debate is not over, but my reading is we are 20 minutes into the last quarter and the team in the lead has a 40 point margin. Worst still the outcome is not a game but significant changes to how we live and 100 million+ refugees lining for a place to live.


The outlandish claims of 100m sea rises etc are complete bull **** and designed to scare people into believing something that has not been proven (just like your claim of houses falling into the Swan River).
None of the models I have seen predict a 100m rise in sea level. What is well established is when sea levels rise 1m, about 100m of land on average is lost by coastal erosion. A 1m rise in sea level will be very serious for areas like Busselton and parts of Mandurah. What I said was that some people will not pay any attention to any of this until their houses fall into the swan river.


Even if the world warms by 2 deg there will be many that benefit from warming. 2 deg rise will not melt the poles. The effects of AGW are grossly over estimated to scare people into action.
Grossly over-estimated - no - if anything they are being underestimated or suppressed by powerful interest groups. Every intermediate prediction made about global warming in the last few years has been an underestimation. The initial estimates about the life of coral reefs was that they would be OK for the next 50 years - now the latest serious research says they will collapse in 20 years (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/318/5857/1712). Qld tourism operators should think seriously about any long term investment this minute - not next year! BTW the link is not to some two bit news paper or a single persons opinion but one of THE worlds most respected scientific journals where a panel of experts review the articles that are published.

I have been to a conference in the US where US government scientists are not permitted to work on or discuss GW - for a start they have to call it Climate Change. At the end of the conference half a dozen senior US government scientists took me and a group of other scientists from around the world out to one of their private homes - here they read to us a prepared private statement how they deplored the US governments position on GW and how they feared for their jobs if they spoke publicly about it. Tell me again how this is the "Land of the free?" This is the level of vested interest we have to deal with.


If the AGW believers were more open to view and debate the science and be more realistic in there estimates etc. they would have more credibility in my book. Until then it is just a theory yet to be proved or demonstrated to be anything other than a normal natural event.

No problem, feel free to quote any scholarly researched article from a respected peer reviewed scientific source. This is how science works.


See this http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002
I could very well post a vast amount of links to global drought even right here in our own country.

What is interesting is that your link actually supports the theory of Global Warming. Something that most people don't know about global warming is that the number of extreme weather events are increased. Predictions are for more wilder weather - both colder, hotter, wetter and dryer. Cyclones will on average be wilder, snow storms will be fewer but wilder. Insurance companies working on property insurance risks are taking a very keen interest in this matter. The have actuaries working "hell for leather" on this as we speak but they won't tell us about it. If it wasn't a serious risk do you think they would bother?

[BobL]

Biofuel? Have you seen what is happening to the world price of corn? Shot through the roof because we are using it to produce ethanol, in the mean time poor people can't afford to eat. Where's the ethics in that?


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.