Is the climate change debate realy over? [Archive]

fazz

11th March 2008, 09:52 PM

tea lady

11th March 2008, 10:01 PM

You artical is in Bussiness Review for God's sake. They never want anyone to tell them they can't make as much money as they want. They have just published an artical that their readers want to read, not a balanced well researched true but uncomfortable report. There is no debate among reputed scientists, no matter how much you don't want to here it. Unfortunately they(Big business) still have control of the steering wheel, so the jugaunought ain't going no where but in the poo.:((

rod@plasterbrok

11th March 2008, 10:20 PM

Tea Lady you just dont get it do you. There is a debate there is opposing scientific view regardless of how often you say there is not.

The more things like Fazz describes above happens the more people will start looking at the cold facts rather than exagerated hysteria.

The dabate and scientific challenges to AGW THEORY (and it is just a theory NOT a scientific fact), will intensify as people start to feel the economic pain, whilst not seeing evidence of Global Warming.

Have you ever considered that it MIGHT not be true? Believe it or not at one time I blindly believed all I read in the paper too.

echnidna

11th March 2008, 10:29 PM

The scientists are just about totally agreed it is happening.
But they are somewhat divided on the extents and effects of what may happen.

rod@plasterbrok

11th March 2008, 10:32 PM

Bob what you are saying depends entirely on who you listen to and believe.

I don't agree with you, more and more scientists are questioning the AGW theory and so they should the stakes are very very high indeed.

echnidna

11th March 2008, 10:37 PM

Its some years since I studied it, I only took notice of scientists, no wankers or politicians etc.

dazzler

11th March 2008, 10:39 PM

Havent we done this to death Rod :)

johnc

11th March 2008, 10:47 PM

The views of those who do not believe in Global warming are looking weaker by the year, and those who believe are really gathering momentum. Regardless of what you may believe we can not continue to use fossil fuels at the curent rate because we are going to exhaust what we have and we are going to need to develop renewable technology to ensure future generations have a decent standard of living. Like it or not we have to reduce our appetite for depleting the earths resources and the way we consume energy. We really need to stop carrying on about the few think tanks that continually regurgitate this heat cycle rubbish and treat them with the disdain they deserve and start to move towards a more sustainable world.

rod@plasterbrok

11th March 2008, 11:07 PM

Yes Dazzler it has been done to death but never the less it is such an important issue that is done to death by the media at every opportunity.

The trouble is that this is a continuing argument that if ignored, will continue to manifest itself into society as it very nearly has done at a huge cost to living standards across the globe.

I see no problem with posting any new information that I feel is relevant.

Cheers Rod

rod@plasterbrok

11th March 2008, 11:10 PM

John I am not against the reduction of use in fossil fuels nor the continuing development of replacing them. What I dont agree with is the need to scare the pants off everyone to achieve this.

echnidna

11th March 2008, 11:14 PM

Its not just fossil fuels that are nearing exhaustion.
The world is running low on copper, which is the primary metal used for electrical stuff.

rod@plasterbrok

11th March 2008, 11:40 PM

All for recycling and anti pollution etc.

fazz

11th March 2008, 11:54 PM

the one true constant in the history of the planet is climate change ,the hysteria sweeped up by select groups and the media that follows will only politicize and divide this debate instead of a collective approach to sustainability, tea lady i am only trying to provide for my family in a sustainable renewable manna not raping the planet, the hole point of this discussion i feel is not to overreact but to get the facts straight.

Ashore

12th March 2008, 12:48 AM

The last debate on this seamed to die after another forum member posted this link
YouTube - Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? - Pt 1 of 4
Before you go any further why not look at this , unless you are afraid of the facts discussed by a real reputed scientist.

There is no debate between the SCIENTISTS.

TL
You are wrong pure and simple there is debate among reputed scientists ,
It would apear from your post that any reputed scientists, who disagree with your point of view are wrong and not actually " reputed " at all,
Why you would make the arguement that the only reputed scientists are those who agree with your point of view . Lady you have either a limited knowledge of the facts , a lack of understanding of the facts , or have decided to interperate the information you do have in your own way but your statement that there is no debate among reputed scientists is wrong. :no:

jow104

12th March 2008, 02:44 AM

Something is working, I have done 30% less mileage than average this last 12 months, and I suppose that is because I dont like paying higer fuel costs, heating/lighting I have got a contract that also restricts me, so. I am having to conform whether global warming is on or not.

tea lady

12th March 2008, 09:14 AM

God I hate Politics.:((

Andy Mac

12th March 2008, 10:20 AM

Perhaps this global warming event is part of the natural cycle, and mankind's activity will have no effect one way or the other, but anything to reduce pollution and reduce blatant over-consumption is welcome in my book! Pollution is bad for health of the human population, and the natural environment, by which I mean fishes, plants etc. It affects generations yet to be born. Forget about the global warming scenario for a moment, we just shouldn't be pumping so much cr#p in the air and water. We waste far too much of everything, through greed I'd suggest. Short sighted greed.

JMB

12th March 2008, 10:47 AM

I agree with Andy Mac. There are so many ways in which we, as a species, have a negative effect on the environment, other plants and animals, and other humans born into less privileged circumstances. There is already great need for change whether scientists agree or not about the cause of changing climatic conditions.

Ashore

12th March 2008, 12:14 PM

anything to reduce pollution and reduce blatant over-consumption is welcome in my book! Pollution is bad for health of the human population, and the natural environment, by which I mean fishes, plants etc. It affects generations yet to be born.
Agree entirely, :2tsup:

tea lady

12th March 2008, 02:45 PM

.:iagree::wts:

Barry_White

12th March 2008, 03:33 PM

this issue for me hits very close to home, i am a fourth generation saw miller in n.s.w, in recent months forestry in n.s.w has been turned over to the department of environment and climate change (DECC). as it stands any commercial forestry undertaken in n.s.w from firewood to to sawn timber must sign a property vegetation plan (PVP) a legally binding contract between the landholder and the government, with a complex code of practice (regulations) to be overseen with on site audits, with landholders in our aerier not willing to sign the PVP's fearing that they will be fined by not understanding and complying with these regulations our business has lost it's supply and after 60 year's in the industry our family business is on the verge of closure so much for a LABOUR government as 12 hard workers will soon be out of work. the timber industry as we now it is about to change from wolds best practice to imported clear feel rainforest species. it just does not make sense it's pure political , there's no greater motivator then fear.

What Fazz says is so true because I live in the area that he harvests as well as the farmers in the area also do. This is done in a very sustainable way.

I have lived in the area for 30 years and my brother-in-law is one who from time to time supplies timber for his mill. I have watched cleared areas in this country become regenerated to the extent that where you could see for long distances they have totally restricted the view to a few yards.

These restrictions put in place by short sighted shiny ar$3's that have never seen anything but asphalt and concrete and don't know what they are talking about are also affecting the livelihood of the landholders that sell a few trees during the time of drought to supplement their income that comes off freehold land.

Just to show how this country regenerates I have posted a couple pics. The first one is of a couple of Yellow Box trees that are less than 9 years old that just came up. The other one is a pic of a Yellow Box that has just naturally died in the last 18 months. That tree is possibly a 100 years old about the same age as the live ones beside it.
69063 69064
The trees here get to a certain age and begin to die and these are the ones that my brother in law cuts for the mill.

A lot of the time the trees that he sends to the mill are the ones that are blown down during wind storms of which there was six to eight from a storm just prior to Christmas.

rod@plasterbrok

12th March 2008, 04:27 PM

Sensible reduction in pollution can be achieved without the scary mantra of AGW.

Everyone should be concerned about pollution and take resonable steps to minimize the effects of pollution.

The green movement have hijacked AGW as there way of imposing impossible conditions on people to "save the world" that is in no danger.

The situation that Fazz is in right now will spread and grind industry and production to a halt. It will all become just to hard.

Koala-Man

12th March 2008, 04:43 PM

pharmaboy2

12th March 2008, 06:21 PM

heh Gaz, perhaps you could ask the same quaestions of the IPCC report writers, especially the writers of the policy executive summary - I think you'd find similar shortcomings.

tell you what, if we now move into a period of la nina's and the average global temp continues to rise over the ensuing few years, then I'll chnage my mind for sure - but right now, the global temp seems to have more in common with the SOI than anything else.

dazzler

12th March 2008, 06:57 PM

I would be a lot more impressed with this article if had included some details.
For example:
Which conference?
Who organised it?
Who was invited?
Who attended?
Where were the papers they presented published?
Were the views presented in thisd article really the conclusions of the scientists?
Did they vote on it?
Did the writer present the majority view or just the view of a few - maybe even one - scientist?
How can we know whether these views were even presented accurately?

Now, maybe the climate change sceptics will turn out to be right, and the great majority of scientists who study these things will turn out to be wrong. I doubt it, but I'm trying to keep an open mind.

One thing I do know, though, is that the writer of this article will have to do a lot better if he wants to be taken seriously by anyone who doesn't already agree with him.

Gaz.

Well said Gaz :2tsup:

I love this bit;

Current temperature trends show a warm period between 1920 and 1940, followed by a cooling phase. There was a sudden warming surge from 1976 to 1978 and another in 1998. Since then the weather has been cooler. The year 1934 has emerged as the warmest of the 20th century.

This, along with the evidence of those historical warm periods, confirms that man-made greenhouse gas emissions cannot possibly be the cause of the earth’s warming.

"Confirms". Love sweeping statements. Particularly when it is not the single warm or cold years that they are talking about, its the cumulitive years that scientists point to that worries them.

Carbon created the atmosphere that we now have and has been maintained by the "carbon cycle". We have changed that cycle by raising the carbon PPM ratio.

The best example of what we are up against IMO is the change to our climate resulting from the 1815 eruption of Sumbawa in Indonesia. This vulcanic eruption spread enough dust to cool the planet causing crops to fail globally, frosts in the US throughout summer, a famine in Ireland that killed 65,000, and planted seeds fail to germinate throughout much of the cooler climates. Globally the temparature dropped by only 1degree.

So IF global warming is true, then the calamity that WILL occur will be beyond anything humans have experienced to date. Imagine 2 Billion people in china without food, another 750 million next door and on it goes.

Perhaps Rod is right, maybe its all one big con job. But I would feel a whole lot better if there was another nice watery planet we could all move to if it goes pear shaped.

Oh, and I forgot, what is the reasoning for the vast majority of scientists involved in researching global warming, conning us all and feeding us crap :?

rod@plasterbrok

12th March 2008, 07:51 PM

Plenty of reasons Dazzler, I'm sure many of them feel they are right! Others are riding on the coat tails comming up with scary scenarios on the basis the first guys are right. They are also making a fortune from grants etc.

It is very easy to come up with a multitude of bad things that will happen when or if this happens that will attract huge grants.

Now some of those things are so far fetched they are impossible to believe, yet others are quite plausible provided that the original theory is correct. All these things have created a huge industry for researchers. Hey why not. If people want to know what will happen IF the temps go up 2 degrees well we are here to tell you. They don't want the theory to be proven to be wrong no way!

Yet there are others prepared to speak up. The Greens have jumped all over this like flies on S--t. They love and will keep the wagon rolling at all cost. It is in their interest to do so. They are a well funded loud out there group of individuals.

Now, how do the general public react? Of course many are going to believe everything they read in the paper. Many are going to be fearful of the future quite rightly so given the propaganda they have been fed. Yet when it doesn't come to pass some people start to question the logic, and so they should.

Don't worry there are many many reasons to keep the myth going. But none that are going to do us any good.

Why not look at the other arguments being put forward with an objective view?

Why would you just dissmiss out of hand any other logical explanation for our weather?

I think there will be more food shortages cause by the myth of AGW than anything else, due to the push for Bio Fuels. The world population is growing and we need more arible land planted with food crops not with Bio Fuel crops.

I know many people who have not even considered that AGW might not be a certainty, simply because they blindly believe all that is reported in the main stream media. Now there's a thing, why aren't the anti AGW news story's in the MSM? Good new does not sell papers for one.

I just ask people to consider the logical arguments put forward that dispells the AGW as a myth. Rather than blindly following the leader.

dazzler

12th March 2008, 09:29 PM

Given the enormous ramifications of either course of action don't you think it would be better to listen to what they are saying and put their cards on the table so to speak, just so that ultimately the right choices are made.

.

Hi Rod

Last piece from me. You may be right, but what you fail to see or accept is that the one thing that the scientists that DO believe it are saying that we DONT have time and must act now. It would be nice to have a lot more time but they are saying that we dont.

You obviously think we do, as is your right. I am not prepared to gamble on that and support programs to reduce fossil fuel use.

I do agree that there is an industry around it, the carbon offset companies concern me, however it would be silly to look for radical groups with vested interests as a reason to slam it. I do think the greens confuse, on purpose, green issues and global warming.

Thats why I dont support them.

But I do support those scientists who devote much of thier lives to helping mankind, and any conspiracy theories regarding them are just plain stupid :rolleyes:.

When the first settlers arrived in the US they came across a tribe of indians who woke each morning before the sun came up. When asked why they said it was to "wake the sun up". The settlers told them they could sleep in because the sun would come up. The indians however refused saying they wouldnt take that chance.

Me thinks Im an indian :p.

Cheers

rod@plasterbrok

12th March 2008, 09:51 PM

Mickj

12th March 2008, 10:01 PM

As mentioned in previous threads, its all about "managing the risk".
If there is a 1 in 1000 chance that the "Doom" sayers are correct, then I think its worth while doing something about it.
We fixed the hole in the ozone(yes its still there, but its shinking), and I hope we can fix this as well.

echnidna

12th March 2008, 10:18 PM

Rod,
Consider the attitudes of some of the politicians who until relatively recently denied that it was happening, who have now begrudglingly accepted that it is indeed happening.

For example look at the backflips of
Little Johnnie & cohorts
George Bush

Also consider most of the world goverments are to increasing degrees united about it.

It sure is happening, nothing else could cause such widespread change to politicians attitudes.

BTW, the earth is not flat :D

johnc

12th March 2008, 10:36 PM

Maybe you are lets all hope so!

I just see the ballance of probabillities that the money needed to be spent trying to avoid a potential problem. When there is no emperical evidence to support the theory is just wrong. Particularly when there is evidence (if you care to read it), that downright refutes teh theory of AGW.

Then on top of that the globe has waxed and waned in temperature for billions of years without our help. Based on the evidence of the past 10 years it appears that we have just passed another high point.

Rod,

This is a load of rubbish, there is now only a small band of dodgey brothers scientists grasping at straws in a pretence that we don't have a problem. Forget about single years we are looking at pretty solid trends as well as the ice caps shrinking at a fast rate. There is plenty out there to support the idea that those who say lets wait and see are just those that don't want to open their eyes and be part of the solution.

Blokes like you don't get it, the world is warming, there are to many people in it, we are consuming resources at rates we can not maintain for much longer, we can no longer pollute and deforest the planet at the rate we have been. We have to change and countries and regions including Europe, Britain, Russia, much of Asia, Australia, Canada, NZ all seem to think its a really big problem.

The solutions for global warming will also benefit some of our other problems, and we are told we are running out of time. If you don't believe we have a problem then fine, just stop banging on with a whole bunch of unsupported rubbish and the rantings of a few half wits and open your eyes, the world is moving on and I think people have stopped listening to the few drongo's who want their precious little corner of earth to remain as it is until its to late to do anything.

artme

12th March 2008, 11:08 PM

I have looked at this debate from every angle I can think of and have still not decided for mysel whether or not the human race contributes enough to actually cause global warming or even contribute to it significantly.

However, we have all seen the effects of increasing industrialisation in places such as China where the air in some cities is now putrid. Those of us who have flown in and out of Los Angeles will remember flying through thick, brown smog for what seemed an eternity. Launceston in Tasmania has badly smoke polluted air in winter due to all the woodbuning heaters and th inability of the air to circulate properly. These are examples, on a smaller but significant scale, of what can happen due to human contributions.

But what of long term climatic cycles? Are we simply unfortunate enough to be caught up in a natural warming phase over which we have no control, whatever our contribution? With all our current knowledg and technology coul we alter an Ice Age? I think not and we know the human species surved at least one.

Aparently when Scott went to the South Pole he was caught up by extreme and unseasonable weather, but that doesn't appear to have been the harbinger of climatic change. Adelaide is experiencincing the longest hot spell in recorded history. Does this mean the end is nigh? Who knows?

The effects of El nino and La Nina are now much better, but not perfectly, understood. It appears that these phenomena have now been used by some as "proof" that the world is warming up.

There is such a plethora of information , misinformation and hysteria floating about that we find it difficult to see the forest for the trees.
A general consensus is that the world is warming up. It's the cause/s that is really the subject of serious debate. How much as a speicies we contribute to the warming is, a part of that debate.

For me, I take the attitude that we are probly getting warmer. I don,t know how much we can or can't do about that but I think we should all be prudent and do everything in our power to lower the effect of our action's on the planet's health.

dazzler

12th March 2008, 11:35 PM

Not debating here but something interesting on the ABC radio yesterday.

A scientist from Hobart was saying that IF the sea level is to rise, naturally or unnaturally :wink:, that for every metre of sea rise it moves/erodes inland 20metres overall. So IF it was to rise 2m then 40m erosion/flooding etc etc.

He suggested not to buy that new beachside property :p

rod@plasterbrok

13th March 2008, 12:20 AM

Got a bridge for sale Dazzler interested? Yes a big IF and what he says may quite well be true IF. Even the IPCC say it wont rise even 1m. Just more scaring the population.

Pollies had no choice but to embrace climate change no one had the balls to stand up (except for the chez Pres'). I they did they would be out on their ear and they know it. Wont see it in the under developed countries (got too much to gain), nor the developed countries (get booted out).

Johnc it is exactly that type of shrillness in your post from others, that made me start to wonder if all that is being claimed is true in the first place. I can just as easily say what you say is a load or rubbish too. But I'm far too polite. The thing is I can understand why you have your view I just dont agree with it. It is more than a small band of scientist that disagree with AGW. Besides, who is it calling them dodgey? Could it be that they too are experts in their field? Or is it that they just don't comply? Would you prefer that they just say nothing? Or agree when they don't, therefore just lie?

Time of course is the only thing that will tell the truth, but for mine this will go by the wayside like just about every other scare campaign. You wont even conceed that there is a chance that this is just not happening the A in AGW that is. Sure the world has warmed .07 deg in 100 years but is there a chance that this is natural? What to you propose to reduce the human population by the way?

Only this one will take time due to the emotions that it stirs up in the absolute believers.

There is NO WAY that the world as a whole will reduce emissions like what has been bandied around. Sure some countries can off load some of their emissions onto under developed countries and be a bit like Jack Horner who sat in a corner. That will work!!

rod@plasterbrok

13th March 2008, 12:37 AM

(not my words) Czech president Vaclav Klaus says global warming activists are a threat to feedom. And their plans to slash emissions by 2020 are fantasies:

I recently looked at the European CO2 emissions data covering the period 1990-2005, the Kyoto protocol era. You don’t need huge computer models to very easily distinguish three different types of countries in Europe.
In the less developed countries, Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Spain, which during this period were trying to catch up with the economic performance of the more developed EU countries, rapid economic growth led to a 53 per cent increase in CO2 emissions (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23358915-7583,00.html). In the post-communist countries, which went through a radical economic restructuring with the heavy industry disappearing, GDP drastically declined. These countries decreased their CO2 emissions in the same period by 32 per cent. In the EU’s slow-growing if not stagnating countries (excluding Germany where its difficult to eliminate the impact of the fact that the east German economy almost ceased to exist in that period) CO2 emissions increased by 4 per cent.
The huge differences in these three figures are fascinating. And yet there is a dream among European politicians to reduce CO2 emissions for the entire EU by 30 per cent in the next 13 years compared to the 1990 level.
What does it mean? Do they assume that all countries would undergo a similar economic shock as was experienced by the central and eastern European countries after the fall of communism? Do they assume that economically weaker countries will stop their catching-up process? Do they intend to organise a decrease in the number of people living in Europe? Or do they expect a technological revolution of unheard-of proportions?
What I see in Europe, the US and other countries is a powerful combination of irresponsibility and wishful thinking together with the strong belief in the possibility of changing the economic nature of things through a radical political project

Sebastiaan56

13th March 2008, 09:42 AM

He suggested not to buy that new beachside property :p

Thats why we bought in the Blue Mountains!

This debate goes on and on. The weight of opinion is that it is happening, Arctic melts, NW passage open this summer, Himalayan glaciers melting etc, etc. If it isnt anthropomorphic, its still happening. I drive a Prius (still costs <$50 to fill), am getting off the grid and have the solar hot water coming. The big picture, well, we have a more sympathetic government but growth in India and China seems unstoppable. China is building a new coal powered station every couple of weeks.

I dont believe there is a con going on but Im not much of a conspiracy theorist anyway. Its just not the history of science to behave that way (if it were the church well then there maybe an argument to be made). Think how the phony cloners in Korea were outed. Peer review is a powerful mechanism. But I do think the cred of the all of the scientists needs to be explored as well as their funding made public.

There is also a tendency to treat this problem as a pollution problem and not an economic or structural one. An interesting interview on Counterpoint this week explored the subject well. Transcript is here http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2008/2184753.htm#transcript

BTW, Oil has hit $110 US per barrel. This is going to be a much more urgent problem than Global Warming. Im long on oil, $150 US by years end. There is a bit more inflation coming our way I think.

Also Rod, I know there is a lot of economic doomsaying going on about the challenge but I see it as an opportunity. Most energy infrastructure is aging and re investment is urgently needed. This money will have to be spent anyway! We havent had any brown outs in Sydney this year but only because its been a cool summer. NSW has left its privatisation way too late and will cop the costs of carbon taxes. IMHO personal power generation has a lot going for it but its hard to tax so the progress will be slow. Soon there will be a cost tipping point and it will be the same price to generate your own as solar power development gathers steam (boom crash boom). Ive said it before, "there's money to be made in them thar power plants!"

LotteBum

13th March 2008, 09:51 AM

Artme hit the nail on the head.... sure, we may not be actively contributing to global warming, but what if we are?

Also, pollution is a major concern. Can it really hurt for us all to make an effort, or is it all just too hard (ie. are we all too lazy?).

Cheers,
Lotte

pharmaboy2

13th March 2008, 10:32 AM

A general consensus is that the world is warming up. It's the cause/s that is really the subject of serious debate.

I disagree, that the cause is all that important in a direct sense. the big issue i have with alarmists is the application of computer models to predict outcomes far into the future, that are yet to show they are accurate empirically. The models presume the CO2 anthopogenic story, but apply water vapour as a forcer and positive feedback, which of course goes against what we observe - eg as you go towards the tropics and higher humidity, absolute temps decline because of cloudy skies, but nighttimes warm.

The cost of not putting out co2 is massive - incomprehensibly large on a global scale - and likely to leave less money going around to research and act on preparing and modifying for climate change. I see no likelihood at all that we can have deep cuts across the globe, nor that it would work anyhow, even if the models were right.

The cut co2 idea is an unpractical solution to an unproven problem that will limit our ability to adjust.

rod@plasterbrok

13th March 2008, 11:37 AM

Well put pharmaboy2.

Mickj

13th March 2008, 01:16 PM

I don't see how cutting CO2 emissions is impactical??
Irrespective of global warming, we all should be finding more efficient ways of consuming resources. Just because we don't have the technology now, doesn't mean that the answers don't exist. Using "Less" to produce "More" is the key to sustainability.

Unfortunately there are organisations out there(governments and private enterprise) who are making too much money out of the current situation.

rod@plasterbrok

13th March 2008, 01:55 PM

I don't see that as a problem either Mickj, providing it is done in a practical way and implimented when it is economically responsible to do so. I believe that further development of renewable rescources and clean energy technologies should be persued.

To attempt to force unsustainable or unworkable changes based on the theory of AGW alone will simply force errors and bad judgement, costing billions of dollars with no measured benefit.

pharmaboy2

13th March 2008, 03:40 PM

I don't see how cutting CO2 emissions is impactical??

the rest i agree with btw

but its one thing for an individual, or part of an economy to cut its use and become more efficient, its another to cut year on year substantially the whole planets co2 output.

The major impediments been population growth and development for the already existing populations in the 3rd world.

look at a product like aluminium which uses massive amounts of energy to produce, such that the best place to put a plant is near the cheapest power you can find. If western countries move away from cheap power, then aluminium will need to be made elsewhere - afterall, we'll still need aluminium to make light transport, planes, and wind turbines etc. so where will the cheapest electricity come from - well either old nuclear plants that dont have to apply capital costs to their output - ie Russia, OR to coal rich developing nations who will burn coal by the bucketload to supply us with aluminium.

We lose the manufacturing industry, we produce less co2, but the net global output of co2 remains the same. very probably the co2 output will be more, as the coal will be burnt a little less effeiciently in a 3rd world nation.

the development of the worlds poor is the big issue - we have neither the power nor the right to stop it. so co2 output will stay the same or decline gradually at best - it will certainly not reverse the co2 levels in the atmostphere inside the next 200 years - so either way, we will have to deal with the outcome regardless - this is the point when many people say we have to act now and radically to stop it.

That leaves only 2 options - either make sure you can adapt to changes, in which case anthropogenic or not, makes no difference, OR we research and develop ways of modifying the climate should the warming be too great or have bad outcomes for crops etc - ie act on the basis of empirical information.

johnc

13th March 2008, 08:39 PM

This series of posts originated from an article written in a NZ paper about climate change and supported the view that this was not a proven fact. The article referred to a paper delivered at a climate change conference and despite the odd post questioning the origin nothing has been brought forward.

At this point it should be made clear that the article was the result of the author’s attendance at the New York Climate Change Sceptics Conference, which was organised by the Phillip Morris friendly Heartland Institute and on its web site boasts a large number of sponsors, including the George C Marshall Institute. The speakers include <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comhttp://www.woodworkforums.ubeaut.com.au/ /><st1:country-region w:st=US</st1:country-region> senator Marc Marano who has the dubious honour of receiving more political donations from <st1:country-region w:st="on">U.S.</st1:country-region> oil companies than any other senator. It also includes marketers, theologians, economists but the closest it comes to a climate scientist is some bloke who studies hurricanes. The theologian pursues the idea of intelligent design over evolution and the marketer believes organically grown produce is bad for you because it doesn’t look nice; this is a pretty bright bunch. The most disturbing observation is that Exxon Mobil provides funding to not just the Heartland Institute and George C Marshall Institute but also the senator and either directly or through their employers most of the speakers and sponsors. A bit strange you might think and something Rod does not seem bothered about. It is also odd that a large number of journalists received sponsorship to attend and that those journalists in the main supported articles that suited the sceptics.

If balance is what you are after forget it, all the speakers are skeptics and paid to get up and spruke their views. Even the Czech prime minister made an appearance, well known for his outspoken views he is a bit of a John Howard type figure who although his views on climate are not held in high regard in his own country remains popular in the electorate. He has toned down his views a bit and as an economist by training is quite capable of amassing a bunch of statistics that mesmerize and confuse but his credentials on climate remain uninspiring.
<O:p</O:p
The David Suzuki foundation has a rather nice article on skeptics that you can get off the net, and points out that the skeptics in general receive a lot of funding from the coal and oil industry that have learnt from the tactics of the tobacco industry to ensure any regulation on their behaviour will be a long time coming. Generally the funding will not go to any credible climate change scientist but to the half baked views of people in unrelated fields with the potential to confuse debate. In fact of the peer reviewed articles by the climate change fraternity the argument isn’t about the existence of climate change but the pace of it. The empirical evidence of CO2 build up has been proven in ice core samples in the artic and coincides with the industrialized age. Climate change is real; it is happening and has the potential to be very damaging. The problem in obtaining a set of figures that says this particular temperature increase is climate change and this piece is climatic is simply that the variables are so huge that the data is impossible to accumulate, but what is possible to say that on the balance of probability change is now of a size that climate change is a large part of the problem, and although a large part not 100% quantifiable.

Of greater interest the major funding provider of the organisations behind this event is Exxon Mobil who has given tens on millions to these right wing think tanks. Exxon was part of a group including Shell that disbanded in 2004 after most of the group excepted climate change as beyond reasonable doubt. Exxon has continued on with a policy of disinformation and confusion, helped along by paid individuals who gladly accept pieces of silver to peddle their lies.
<O:p</O:p
An earlier post accused me of being shrill, don’t confuse contempt for shrillness, I do not consider a woodwork forum the place for the garbage that commenced this post, nor for the fools that post the rubbish that comes from the disinformation units aimed at slowing down the response to climate change. If you are going to post an article give some idea of the source and if you are asked who was there and who was involved don’t dodge the question, this is really an answer to that original post on who was behind the article. This is my final contribution to the thread, and for those interested the question is no longer if we have climate change but what are we going to do about it. Warmer temperatures may actually see Europe plunged into an ice age as the ocean currents to the west move southward as a result of the loss of the polar ice caps. It may also see <st1:country-region w:st="on">Australia</st1:country-region> as a dry and inhospitable place, if you want to see how all this will evolve then do nothing and we might get to see it within our own life times.

rod@plasterbrok

13th March 2008, 09:25 PM

John, I dont even think I will bother resonding to that post. Except to say this.

You just dont get it and never will your contempt for rational opinion is in fact your shrillness.

Grunt

13th March 2008, 10:32 PM

Good debating there Rod, attack the messenger if you can't attack the message.

Current temperature trends show a warm period between 1920 and 1940, followed by a cooling phase. There was a sudden warming surge from 1976 to 1978 and another in 1998. Since then the weather has been cooler. The year 1934 has emerged as the warmest of the 20th century.

DENIAL MYTH #10: There was a significant period of global cooling between the 1940s and the 1970s. This cooling period existed as anthropogenic CO2 levels were rising significantly. If anthropogenic CO2 is more important than natural drivers, then this cooling period would not exist, yet it does (Sources: produced by Rcronk in the comments to Eastern seaboard of the United States to be much hotter (http://scholarsandrogues.wordpress.com/2007/05/11/eastern-seaboard-of-the-united-states-to-be-much-hotter/), but also made in the Wikipedia.org claims (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming)).
http://img526.imageshack.us/img526/1262/stottetalfig2smys5.jpg (http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/1627/stottetalfig2lgjp1.jpg)Debunking: That this cooling period existed and was global in scope is not disputable as the scope of the MWP is - scientists were directly monitoring temperatures globally by this point, and these three decades were cooler than the decades preceding them and dramatically cooler than recent decades. So what caused the cooling? First, there is a correlation between sunspots and solar irradiance (output) on the Earth. During this period, sunspots were less common and there was less solar energy reaching the Earth, allowing it to cool slightly. Second, there were several volcanic eruptions that released massive amounts of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere. Sulfur dioxide is an aerosol that forms droplets of sulphuric acid in the high atmosphere and reflects solar energy back into space, so these two volcanic eruptions had some short- to medium-term effects. In addition, prior to the 1970s there were limited pollution controls, allowing pollutant aerosols to act as coolants via reflection of solar radiation. Ultimately, though, it is believed that sometime after 1970 the concentration of CO2 rose to the point that solar forcing was no longer the dominant climate factor, anthropogenic CO2 was. (Sources: Do Models Underestimate the Solar Contribution to Recent Climate Change? (http://climate.envsci.rutgers.edu/pdf/StottEtAl.pdf), Swindled! (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/#more-414))

Link (http://scholarsandrogues.wordpress.com/2007/07/23/anti-global-heating-claims-a-reasonably-thorough-debunking/#m10)

A key problem that scientists have discovered is that the computer model outputs produced by the IPCC are at odds with observable results: in particular a central feature of the IPCC’s case for catastrophic global warming is a forecasted build-up of warmer air above the tropics, yet temperature records show that this is not occurring.

DENIAL MYTH #16: Global heating isn’t actually happening because satellite measurements of tropical temperatures have not been rising like directly-measured temperatures in the tropics (Source: distillation of multiple people’s claims at Wikipedia.org (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming)).
Debunking: The satellites used to measure tropical temperatures remotely were discovered to have been drifting in their orbit, producing temperature measurements that were not during the day as expected, but rather during the night, confusing the cooler evening and nighttime temperatures with warmer daytime temperatures. The paper this comes from is “The Effect of Diurnal Correction on Satellite-Derived Lower Tropospheric Temperature” by Carl A. Mears and Frank J. Wentz of Remote Sensing Systems (http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/1114772v1). Unfortunately, there is not a .pdf of this document available that may be freely distributed. However, this was reported in U.S.A Today (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2005-08-11-global-warming-data_x.htm) and Live Science (http://www.livescience.com/environment/050811_global_warming.html), and if you search Google for “satellite balloon data error global warming” you’ll find a lot more.

Link (http://scholarsandrogues.wordpress.com/2007/07/23/anti-global-heating-claims-a-reasonably-thorough-debunking/#m10)

It appears you are the one who just doesn't get it. The climate change deniers come up with the same old arguments that have been thoroughly debunked.

The article you posted has no validity. It is complete and utter hogwash.

For those who are really interested in finding out about climate change, you should check out these links and the link I've posted above.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

DavidG

13th March 2008, 10:48 PM

Given that the world is going to heat up.

Given that no mater what we do, the rest of the developing word is going to increase its co2 output.

Given that when I grew up we all expected a nuclear winter due to dust and smoke in the atmosphere.

Why not use coal for all power but work out a way of pumping the ash into the upper atmosphere to act as a balance for the co2.

NCArcher

13th March 2008, 10:49 PM

Thanks JohnC and Grunt. It's good to see people backing there arguments with facts and figures not just rhetoric. :2tsup:

rod@plasterbrok

13th March 2008, 10:50 PM

The debate coninues eh! you say the information I posted is rubbish and I simply do not agree with what you are posting I have read realclimate.org at length and you say I attack the man!!!

I was attacking the lack of open mindedness in the way that you guys are so insistant that you are correct when there are ONLY models that have not been PROVEN to be correct.

This whole issue seems to bring out a lot of emotion that is why it is very important to view all the facts positive or negative to your personal views to make an opinion emotion free.

Maybe you could read this if you want some facts follow some of the links contained in the article, that will give you facts. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=865dbe39-802a-23ad-4949-ee9098538277

Maybe they come up with the same arguments because they are true. Whereas the AGW band wagon just keep trying to scare us all to death with dramatized hypothetical ramification AGW.

I ask you will you change your opinion if the global temperatures do not exceed those of 1998 in the next 10 years? Yet co2 will continue to rise over that period regardless of what action we take today. I know I will change mine if temperatures increase at a steady rate in the next 10 years in line with the models. I cant see that happening!

Grunt

13th March 2008, 10:55 PM

Why not use coal for all power but work out a way of pumping the ash into the upper atmosphere to act as a balance for the co2.

Because of the Law of Unintended Consequences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequence). If you pump crap into the atmosphere it stops sun light, which will reduce the temperature. However, how many plants and animals are dependant on sunlight to do there thing?

DavidG

13th March 2008, 10:58 PM

Because of the Law of Unintended Consequences (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequence). If you pump crap into the atmosphere it stops sun light, which will reduce the temperature. However, how many plants and animals are dependent on sunlight to do there thing?I said "balance" not block. Currently the amount of UV getting through is increasing so a reduction is in order.

johnc

13th March 2008, 11:07 PM

Rod,

You over looked the poster was the very man that recieves more oil industry funding than any other US Senator see Posted By Marc Morano - 6:05 PM ET - [email protected] ([email protected]) and this bloke was also a speaker at the conference.

Could you find something a little more independant perhaps. At the same time read your responses to those you agree with as opposed to those that disagree, you may not realise but you are totally closed to any idea that differs to your pre conceived idea of the facts. This is not a discussion but Rods view of climate change, period.

johnc

13th March 2008, 11:09 PM

I said "balance" not block. Currently the amount of UV getting through is increasing so a reduction is in order.

David,

That's to do with Ozone levels not CO2, and I thought the hole was showing signs of finally repairing itself?

Grunt

13th March 2008, 11:18 PM

There is nothing in my post that attacked you in any way shape or form. I do not debate with using ad hominems.

I said the article that you posted was rubbish. It is full of inaccuracies. I've pointed two out.

That article you posted was written by Marc Morano. You should do a google search on that guy. Now there is a bloke with an agenda.

when there are ONLY models that have not been PROVEN to be correct.

You are absolutely right. We will NEVER know for absolute certainty of AGW. It is, however, the most likely scenario.

I am quite open minded about the subject. Post some real science and we can discuss.

bitingmidge

13th March 2008, 11:24 PM

May I ask for a certain amount of logic here?

Rod, if you poo in a bucket of clean water enough times, does it not get dirty?

Now you can still wash in it, make ice cubes if you wish, and pretend that it's still clean, but I have to tell you, it's not.

Questions for Rod:

Do you think any of the sceptics believe that oil or any other fossil fuel is a finite resource?

Do you think any of them believe that there is relatively little vegetation left on the planet?

Do you think any of their poo don't stink? (OK don't answer that one, but that would explain why they haven't noticed the change in contents in their own buckets)

Now whether or not the impact of all the crap we are shovelling into the sky, and into the oceans is climate change, surely their can be no debate that it is having an impact. Basic physics tells us "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction".

So if we don't know the reaction we are causing is going to be good for us, maybe we should stop doing it until we find out.

Let the sceptics provide proof that there is no reaction (and I'm talking more than climate change).

Cheers,

P
:p

rod@plasterbrok

14th March 2008, 12:20 AM

I agree with you that pollution should be kept at a minimum and that research should continue to find alternate energy sources. No doubt about that. But forced reduction on Co2 is not the answer. BTW Co2 is not a pollutant. Its plant food.

I agree that fossil fuels are a finite recource.
I agree that deforestation is bad for the eco system.

We cant just stop "doing it until we find out" What cease all activity that releases co2? are you serious?

There is enough "peer reviewed" evidence that debunks the AGW theory if you care to read it. It is peer reviewed papers everyone wants to see I guess.

John and Grunt it is a common and baseless attack on Marc Monaro simply based on some funding sheez arent we over this "big Oil" thing already. Look at the information and those who provide it not attack it not the funding. Who cares where the funding comes from as long as the truth comes out in the end. I don't believe what is in this link is soley the opinion of Marc Monaro in any case he has simply collated information from various scources. Are they all funded by big oil?

Take the time to read these. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84E9E44A-802A-23AD-493A-B35D0842FED8 This stuff cannot be ignored forever.

AGW has not yet been "Proven" it is the opinions of scientist and others based on climate models that have been debuked already due to inconsistant data and incorrect assumptions. All of which you will find in the links provided.

While ever these models and AGW is an unproven theory it remains open to debate and scrutiny.

Sebastiaan56

14th March 2008, 05:53 AM

David,

That's to do with Ozone levels not CO2, and I thought the hole was showing signs of finally repairing itself?

This link updates ozone layer information http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/jds/ozone/index.html and http://www.theozonehole.com/fact.htm its not over although the reduction in atmospheric halogens is starting to be effective.

/Rave on

One of the problems with this debate is that it is so presented to be black and white. There are vested interests everywhere and a lot of money at stake. There is also an old world / new world divide and the result of all of this is paralysis. Interesting feature on Catalyst last night on the politics of it all. The most telling conference clip was the NG delegate "If you're not willing to lead, then please get out of the way". The science is clear, the problem is political.

I dont trust any research funded by commercial vested interests, Cigarette companies, Oil companies, Fast Food companies or Drug companies. Even if it is washed through private institutes. They have been caught out too often. There is plenty of sham science around and it usually gets trotted out at large privately funded conferences with lots of freebees and enticements for delegates. I also deeply distrust any claims from the US (particularly the US Senate or senators) as they have gone to war to secure oil reserves and the rot is top down. These pollies need to look after those who fund their election campaigns. Bush was an oil man and large chunks of the Republican party are funded by oil. These supposed leaders of the free world are nothing more than bully boy thieves and will use any tactic to line their sponsors pockets. They lied to wage war in Iraq.

Its like asking Ronald McDonald for nutrition advice or Philip Morris on the safety on cigarettes. /Rave off

Ive been doing a bit of a trawl, I have not been able to find much climate change debunking on the net that is not US based. Now maybe this is because the net is overwhelmingly US based, I dont know. Has anyone found sites from any other countries with such a strong leaning? Genuine curiosity here.

bitingmidge

14th March 2008, 08:26 AM

What cease all activity that releases co2? are you serious?

No.

I think all countries should be allowed to pollute equally. So we should reduce activity that releases co2 (or any other pollutant) to an agreed PER CAPITA level.

In the absence of any other agreement, how about using the current mean levels per capita as a base? I suspect that would involve something like a 70% reduction, but I haven't done the sums.

Isn't this all about greed really? We're already in the richest 10% on the planet, and what we are doing by continuing to relentlessly consume, is to set objectives for the other 90%, they want to be like us (fair enough).

We are in a position wealth and resource wise to set an example to the world on how to live with minimal impact. We can't control their activities, but my spider senses tell me that when they catch up, it'll be a bit gruesome.

There is no balance at the moment. We are such an insignificant blip in the statistics that whatever we do makes no difference, UNLESS we do something so startling that the world takes notice.

Maybe it's time for that?

http://www.miniature-earth.com/

Cheers,
P

rod@plasterbrok

14th March 2008, 08:32 AM

I think you will find the site may be US based but the scientist are from all over the World.

So do we let all the under developed / overpopulated countries catch up to our emissions per capita?

Or do we drag our infrastructure and living stadards down to their level to to equal their emissions per capita?

yeah that will work!!!

And exactly what will this achieve?

How much will doing this reduce world temperatures?

You can forget about emissions equal per capita It will and could never happen!

bitingmidge

14th March 2008, 10:19 AM

Or do we drag our infrastructure and living standards down to their level to to equal their emissions per capita?

What do you mean by living standards? If you mean get rid of water and sanitation and electricity supply, then I'd say no, they can meet ours.

If you mean minimise consumption, waste, packaging, inefficient transport (who needs 200 hp just to drive to work?), and all the other excesses of our life"style", then yes.

yeah that will work!!!
Glad you agree.

And exactly what will this achieve?
It will buy time. Time to find alternatives to the resources we are depleting rapidly. Time to create efficiencies in recycling so we don't have to run out. Time to invent technologies to enable us to go on another century.

I'll be dead, but my Grandchildren might appreciate that.

How much will doing this reduce world temperatures?
It doesn't matter what the temperatures are, if we've run out of stuff to heat things with, cool things with, eat and drink, no one will worry about the odd heat wave.

This conversation is oh so seventies, when the ciggie companies were denying any negative health issues with cigs, and the manufacturing companies were happily spilling stuff into rivers and killing off everything and denying it had an impact.

Sometimes it pays to turn off the tele and go outside. By outside I don't mean Australia, we are such an insignificant overprivileged self righteous bunch who are completely insulated from the real issues of the world.

Go to India or the back blocks of China or Indonesia or any of the former Soviet countries, and take a look at the WORLD.

You don't need scientific arguments to tell you that something isn't quite right.

You can forget about emissions equal per capita It will and could never happen!
Trust me, it could and it WILL, it's just a matter of whether we want it to happen in a controlled way, or whether we want to wait till we run out of resources.

And this on a day when they are calling for the government to make petrol cheaper, so we can use more! :doh:

Cheers,

P
:p

Sebastiaan56

14th March 2008, 12:11 PM

Hey Peter,

I personally think that peak oil will be the big short term challenge and will probably consume more attention than AGW very soon. Im also curious to see some maths on the potential atmospheric CO2 if all the oil was burnt. IMHO oil is way to important for solvents, plastics etc to waste on burning for energy. But its where the infrastructure is. We need other solutions.

As long as its not bio fuel, burning food to drive around the burbs is the next level of insanity. Particularly ethanol - what a waste!

Sebastiaan

bitingmidge

14th March 2008, 12:27 PM

I agree Sebastiaan, but the challenge will be here an not in the third world.

We won't like not being able to drive a kilometre to the shop to pick up a paper! It won't impact significantly on the third world guys though, or even in Europe where there is less reliance on our grand "half acre" lifestyle.

In "civilised" cities, the markets are below the accommodation, but that's "unAustralian" if you talk to the urban planners!

Cheers,

P (is this the beginning of a hijack?)
:D

Sebastiaan56

14th March 2008, 12:56 PM

(is this the beginning of a hijack?)

Seems more relevant than the entrenched positions that have been thrashed to death with little chance of movement on either side.

You're absolutely right BTW. We will feel it, not those who dont have the oil dependence. Its gonna be a wild old ride and we will do the usual, blame the incumbent government blah blah.

Gotta go, Im driving the V8 4WD to Maccas for lunch......, then off to the other side of Sydney to buy some expensive imported rainforest timber and home for some imported 3rd world beer and delivered pizza. :wink:

Sebastiaan

johnc

14th March 2008, 01:05 PM

I'd agree that our issue with peak oil, is to reduce the reliance on oil in transport to conserve it for plastics and to a lesser extent the fertilizer market. The future would seem to be more about moving towards electric cars or scooters for local trips, and tram, train and bus for longer hauls. The caravan may be at its heyday, I can't see a bright future for that industry. Bio fuel or more particularly ethanol does not appear to be an option, along with the enormous amount of land required it would also mean the third world would have trouble competing with the bio fuel market for food staples.

It would make sense to get road transports off the freeways and their loads on to flatbed rail cars, then picked up by local transport. One train engine uses a lot less fuel per tonne of freight than a truck. It shouldn't be to hard to create a handling system that minimises handling. If Singapore can do it with the ship based container market surely we can apply similar logic to the freight industry. Congestion in Melbourne now means that if I have to go into the city its public transport, and the same goes for getting around, but not if its across suburbs where the links aren't direct. Just getting the cars off the roads would ease the congestion and allow faster travel times. I do know there are a large number of people in this town that now take the train rather than the car if they can, because on the morning run it cuts at least an hour off the trip, but the problem remains the lack of services. The aging carriages are a turn off as well.

Solar technologies are advancing at a fast rate and may well be a big power source in the future, the new solar power plant on the drawing board in Northern Victoria is an interesting develpment, and if it is a success perhaps we will see more in the future. We still have a long way to go on power wastage in the home, both through poor house design and standby appliances gobbling up power while doing nothing. As a big push to reducing power wastage and the need for more sources of power you have go to wonder why we haven't mandated that this stuff should shut its self right off when not in use.

Andy Mac

14th March 2008, 02:53 PM

rsser

14th March 2008, 04:02 PM

I'm happy to contribute.

Good point tho.

Remember the superphosphate subsidy?

Mickj

14th March 2008, 04:32 PM

Hi Guys,
I'm currently working for a fertiliser company in WA, and we just cant get enough phosphate. We make the stuff as well as import it.
World wide prices are goiing up weekly. While farmers are getting a good price for the wheat, their losing a lot of it on fertiliser.

I found a few websites all claiming to have plans on how to run your car on water(H2O) ... has anybody done any investigation on this ??. The YouTube videos look realistic, but I'm not sure why there isn't more information available on the subject.

Grunt

14th March 2008, 05:23 PM

I found a few websites all claiming to have plans on how to run your car on water(H2O) .

No. It's all a hoax. They claim to be able to be able to extract the hydrogen from water to run the car. Extracting hydrogen requires a great deal of energy to do. They all look real but they are not. They're really trying to scam for investment money.

There is enough "peer reviewed" evidence that debunks the AGW theory if you care to read it. It is peer reviewed papers everyone wants to see I guess.

I just looked up one of the items in that article you posted.

“New research from Stephen Schwartz of Brookhaven National Lab concludes that the Earth’s climate is only about one-third as sensitive to carbon dioxide as the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) assumes,” wrote AEI’s Schwartz, who hold a master’s degree in planetary science from the California Institute of Technology.

This is cherry picking bits of information from the paper that suits the Marc Monaro agenda.

Have a quick read of this article. Link (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/09/climate-insensitivity/#more-471)

Stephen Schwartz believes AGW is real.

John and Grunt it is a common and baseless attack on Marc Monaro simply based on some funding sheez arent we over this "big Oil" thing already.

I certainly didn't believe the cigarette companies that said smoking wasn't bad for you. They funded plenty of 'Independent' research and got the results that they wanted. The same is happening in the AGW debate. You should check out the doco 'The Denial Machine' (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/) by the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. You will find that the same people who are producing papers on denying climate change were producing papers saying cigarettes don't harm.

pharmaboy2

14th March 2008, 05:48 PM

I certainly didn't believe the cigarette companies that said smoking wasn't bad for you. They funded plenty of 'Independent' research and got the results that they wanted. The same is happening in the AGW debate. You should check out the doco 'The Denial Machine' (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/) by the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. You will find that the same people who are producing papers on denying climate change were producing papers saying cigarettes don't harm.

has it occurred to you that searching for people who have done a paper on smoking AND AGW would get the result the politicists want?

the problem with this topic, is that nearly all of it is opinion - facts are so rare its somewhat unbelieveable its called a science - more akin to economics or psychology than chemistry.

When someone actually wants some "facts" or at least some empirical forward testing of models they get none, and if they say I dont believ it then, they are labelled a "denier" with all its encumberances.

Never has a field of 'science' tried so hard to gain and promote the word consensus! And people wonder why there is a growing cynicism toward it?

BTW its not cherry picking - its called reporting on a paper - they havent misrepresented it, why oh why do Mann et all have to spend so much effort to argue every single thing that doesnt agree perfectly with their beliefs? Mann has lost his ability to be scientific - he is sure he is right!

Grunt

14th March 2008, 05:51 PM

Also, everyone should have a look at Crude, a documentary that aired on the ABC last year. It very neatly ties Peak Oil and Global Warming together.

You can see it online here. http://www.abc.net.au/science/crude/

It is an excellent doco.

Barry_White

14th March 2008, 05:55 PM

Regards the supply of crops for bio-fuel, I read the other day in The Australian that one of the big hurdles facing farmers is the very finite supply of phosphate, now seriously dwindling! Think Nauru and Christmas Island. Australian agriculture, using poor soils, is going to be drastically affected and prices have already shot through the roof. Now talk of reclaiming phosphate from sewerage as a real possibility!:oo:

Cheers,

That is interesting. My brother-in-law hasn't supered his property for about 10 years but with a good season he decided to do something this year.

Rather than use super phosphate he was put onto a contractor here that has a contract to clean out the chicken sheds around the area. At one time there was a plant in the area that used to use all the droppings and turn it into Dynamic Lifter but due to complaints from the local residents they moved the operation right out of the area which created a problem for the chicken farmers of what to do with all the droppings from the sheds.

Hence this contractor bought a tipper with a dog trailer and stockpiles all the droppings. He also bought a front end loader and a huge spreader truck that throws it out about 15 metres each side of the truck. Although it was a bit slow getting going he is now going flat out spreading it on the properties around the district.

It now takes him about four weeks to get back to spread the droppings after delivering it.

It is now about four weeks since he first spread it and we have since had 33mm of rain and already you can see an improvement in the growth where he has spread it and he reckons it can take four years before you get the most benefit from it.

As they say one mans trash is another mans treasure so it's money for chicken crap.

Grunt

14th March 2008, 06:02 PM

the problem with this topic, is that nearly all of it is opinion - facts are so rare its somewhat unbelieveable its called a science

What cods wallop. Have a look at www.realclimate.org. Lots of real science there.

BTW its not cherry picking - its called reporting on a paper - they havent misrepresented it,

Ok, why was the model used in this particular study taken as 'fact' and all of the other models on the subject considered wildly inaccurate? Is it that the author might have an agenda?

When someone actually wants some "facts" or at least some empirical forward testing of models they get none, and if they say I dont believ it then, they are labelled a "denier" with all its encumberances.

There is plenty of evidence.
Show me some real evidence that AGW isn't real.

Andy Mac

14th March 2008, 06:28 PM

That is interesting. My brother-in-law hasn't supered his property for about 10 years but with a good season he decided to do something this year.

Rather than use super phosphate he was put onto a contractor here that has a contract to clean out the chicken sheds around the area. At one time there was a plant in the area that used to use all the droppings and turn it into Dynamic Lifter but due to complaints from the local residents they moved the operation right out of the area which created a problem for the chicken farmers of what to do with all the droppings from the sheds.

Hence this contractor bought a tipper with a dog trailer and stockpiles all the droppings. He also bought a front end loader and a huge spreader truck that throws it out about 15 metres each side of the truck. Although it was a bit slow getting going he is now going flat out spreading it on the properties around the district.

It now takes him about four weeks to get back to spread the droppings after delivering it.

It is now about four weeks since he first spread it and we have since had 33mm of rain and already you can see an improvement in the growth where he has spread it and he reckons it can take four years before you get the most benefit from it.

As they say one mans trash is another mans treasure so it's money for chicken s h i t.

That is excellent news, going back to spraying manure! Just hope it works on a scale to suit my brother- 10,000 acres of (mostly wheat) crop a year, in WA. Fertilizer plus diesel price increases start to squeeze margins a bit.:(

Grunt, that connection between Peak Oil and greenhouse emissions is a wake up call.

Cheers,

Grunt

14th March 2008, 06:29 PM

has it occurred to you that searching for people who have done a paper on smoking AND AGW would get the result the politicists want?

You should watch the doco. I for one, don't put a lot of credence in scientific papers written by people who as recently as the mid 90s were saying that smoking is good for you.

johnc

14th March 2008, 07:05 PM

On fertiliser there was a small number of articles on a farmer in Tassie who had stopped using fertiliser and started using worms, all very organic. I seem to recall he had peaty soils because there is no way this would have worked in arid country. He would take a clump of worms from a heavy worm area and move them as a clump to an area deficient in worms and the action of the little devils was doing wonders for pasture growth. The old chap is probably dead now and it should be pointed out the pasture was grazing sheep which is very different to say dairy or cropping.

I believe fertilzer has only become common since the 1950's and really kicked in along with some pretty disgusting pesticides to really increase crop and pasture yields. We have come a long way from DDT but you have got to wonder what sort of yields we will get if fertiliser either prices itself out of reach or becomes unable to source.

Maybe we will have to start looking at our own droppings as an alternative to ancient bird poo. I like the idea of using the chook dung, chooks are not wonderful processors of food and there dung is high in a lot of good stuff for the soil, nutrient run off is a problem with all fertilisers but if you can minimise runoff and use an existing waste product it has got to be good news.

jow104

14th March 2008, 07:11 PM

Couldn't we eat the fertilizer ourselves (manipulated) and save all the other outlay of farming and global warming problem.
Got to think to change the future.:;

Mickj

14th March 2008, 07:18 PM

Couldn't we eat the fertilizer ourselves (manipulated) and save all the other outlay.:;

McDonalds have already beaten you to it. :C

pharmaboy2

14th March 2008, 07:22 PM

What cods wallop. Have a look at www.realclimate.org (http://www.realclimate.org). Lots of real science there.

There is plenty of evidence.
Show me some real evidence that AGW isn't real.

you perhaps dont undertand what a "FACT" is. A fact isnt open to interpretation, or disgagreement. A model is not a fact, a series of proxy data used to determine temperature is not fact - ice core temp reconstructs arent fact, albido assignments in models are not facts, water vapour as a forcer is not a fact - anything with a confidence interval is not a fact.

so its only codswallop to someone who doesnt understand.

"Prove to me that agw isnt real?"

this is step one of belief systems - you cannot prove a null, and cannot disprove a theorom that doesnt hang its shingle on anything at all. Its upto the proposer to prove something is true, not to apply statitistics and opinion and consensus to show its most likely. Further its upto the proposer to put forward a predictive model capable of been experimented with and capable of been shown wrong. what we have is a theorem.

We have 2 overarching facts - co2 in recent years is substantially higher.

The temp average has moved up 0.6 degree C as measured in the ground based weather stations we have.

johnc

14th March 2008, 07:53 PM

It is a real problem for the climate skeptics that quite a bit that comes from people like Morano is using "facts" that are nothing resembling the truth. They are attributing comments to people that are so out of context as to portray a view that is the opposite of what was said. They are also using figures which can not be supported and have no factual basis whatever. You can argue until you are blue in the face as to what constitutes a theory over a theorem, or the definition of a model over a proven result, it isn't actually presenting anything that supports your case, in fact do you have a case.

It would be more to the point if you explained that a model is created as a why to test theory so that the results can be observed and learned from to get a better understanding. Or as a way to attempt to predict an outcome from the known drivers. Sadly most people reading this probably just dropped off to sleep.

The whole enviroment issue is a major one and it is evolutionary, since the dawn of the steam engine we have been working at gaining as much usable energy as we can out of the fuel available. London in the 1940's and 1950's had such awful smog and health issues from open coal and wod burning fires that it banned them to improve life expectancy and health. We have at times created awful polution problems and at others set about cleaning them up. Amazingly the cleaner technologies often use less resources to produce power and waste less material thus lowering the cost of production.

The very addressing of waste, diminishing resources, energy wastage and so on actually has the very real possibility of providing more to the world not less. It doesn't follow that reducing our carbon footprint means a lower standard of living. It does mean doing things differently and creating predictive models to attempt to estimate how positive changes can be managed to improve economic outcomes. Less energy use means lower costs, so do we sit in unheated homes, of course not it means better insulation and solar efficiency to get as much for less, and it will cost less leaving more cash for other things.

So Pharmaboy2 instead of the pedantic discussing of terms do you have anything factual you would like to put forward, or perhaps some form of predictive model, or empirical research on some of the models that either support the global warming models or not. If you are so fired up about analytical tools lets have some of them because so far I would have to say I have found your posts pretty disjointed and hard to follow.

You might like to start by explaining why ice core samples are not a fact, it is ice, it does lock up what is in the snow at the time, why do you dismiss the results obtained from the samples. It is pointless to dismiss a 2007 black Falcon sedan because its not black, with out mentioning it remains all the other things and the description is close. So are these ice core samples worthless or is the data obtained subject to interpretation. Don't assume that because a question is asked that I don't know the answer, lets see if you do.

rod@plasterbrok

14th March 2008, 10:14 PM

In all seriousness Johnc you and other posters hear supporting AGW have not given any evidence what so ever that proves AGW.

We all know the temps have risen .7 deg in the last century. The problem is determining if this is a natural increase on un-natural increase. The Hockey Stick graph that was hailed as the proof that the rises were un-natural and that they were going to rapidly increase as more co2 was evident, has been debunked and fails every test for factual basis.

Now we are left with models and emperical evidence to support those models, that too has not been evidenced.

The problem is with people who are rusted on believers of AGW will not entertain for a second that there may be evidence that does not support AGW. Nothing I can say or show you will change your mind. Thats cool because I dont have to change your mind.

What is important is that the average joe blow out there can see that there is an under current of evidence out there that is building up and trickeling down through the blogs and web sites into the MSM that completely debunks the AGW theory. In time and with further lack of increased warming the tide will turn and those rusted on believers will no longer be relevent.

More and more scientist are comming out of the wood work supporting natural climate change every week. Scientist and Climatoligist have been threatened with the sack from their jobs and suffered villification to no end for having an opposing opinion. Its a bit like comming out for a gay guy! the more that come out the more that will.

I will not even try to argue with you because I know the same old tired responses will be forth comming. Even if this thread creates one more person to consider it possibe that the current warming is a mostly natural, then it has been worthwhile raising once again.

Time and the hurt in peoples pockets will be the only thing that will finally shake people out of their blind acceptance of AGW.

I heard a great comment, the debate on AGW is like "looking for a sober solution in a world of drunken hysteria".

14th March 2008, 10:58 PM

In all seriousness Johnc you and other posters hear supporting AGW have not given any evidence what so ever that proves AGW.

I think the problem is really that by the time there is enough evidence to "prove" it, it may indeed be too late to do anything about it. To dismiss any contribution by mankind at this stage would be grossly premature. It is basically as simple as this: we don't know whether it is natural or a man made event. But we do know that it is possible to control that which is man made. So again, it is about risk management of the unknown.

If the world can afford to spend trillions of dollars gearing up to destroy the planet over political ideology, it can afford to spend trillions to ensure its survival.

At this stage, I would say that anyone from either side of the debate claiming to "know" the answer is just lying. They are all guessing.

I will not even try to argue with you because I know the same old tired responses will be forth comming.

I think that applies equally well to both sides of this debate...and nearly any other debate you care to pick :D

rod@plasterbrok

14th March 2008, 10:58 PM

Just for a bit of a giggle this sums up a lot of the AGW following!

YouTube - Penn And Teller Get Hippies To Sign Water Banning Petition

Grunt

14th March 2008, 11:08 PM

We all know the temps have risen .7 deg in the last century. The problem is determining if this is a natural increase on un-natural increase. The Hockey Stick graph that was hailed as the proof that the rises were un-natural and that they were going to rapidly increase as more co2 was evident, has been debunked and fails every test for factual basis.

No, your statement is quite false. There were a few inaccuracies in the original work and method but overall the study was correct and has been confirmed by many other studies.

MYTH #4: Errors in the "Hockey Stick" undermine the conclusion that late 20th century hemispheric warmth is anomalous.

This statement embraces at least two distinct falsehoods. The first falsehood holds that the "Hockey Stick" is the result of one analysis or the analysis of one group of researchers (i.e., that of Mann et al, 1998 and Mann et al, 1999). However, as discussed in the response to Myth #1 (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11#myth1) above, the basic conclusions of Mann et al (1998,1999) are affirmed in multiple independent studies. Thus, even if there were errors in the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction, numerous other studies independently support the conclusion of anomalous late 20th century hemispheric-scale warmth.
The second falsehood holds that there are errors in the Mann et al (1998, 1999) analyses, and that these putative errors compromise the "hockey stick" shape of hemispheric surface temperature reconstructions. Such claims seem to be based in part on the misunderstanding or misrepresentation by some individuals of a corrigendum (http://holocene.meteo.psu.edu/shared/articles/MBH98-corrigendum04.pdf) that was published by Mann and colleagues in Nature. This corrigendum simply corrected the descriptions of supplementary information that accompanied the Mann et al article detailing precisely what data were used. As clearly stated in the corrigendum, these corrections have no influence at all on the actual analysis or any of the results shown in Mann et al (1998). Claims that the corrigendum reflects any errors at all in the Mann et al (1998) reconstruction are entirely false.

You can read the whole thing here. Link (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11)

The problem is with people who are rusted on believers of AGW will not entertain for a second that there may be evidence that does not support AGW. Nothing I can say or show you will change your mind. Thats cool because I dont have to change your mind.

Show me some evidence. So far everything you have posted has been shown to be incorrect, selective quoting to misrepresent the actual intent or complete and utter propaganda.

What is important is that the average joe blow out there can see that there is an under current of evidence out there that is building up and trickeling down through the blogs and web sites into the MSM that completely debunks the AGW theory. In time and with further lack of increased warming the tide will turn and those rusted on believers will no longer be relevent.

All the blogs regurgitate the same old arguments that the deniers are peddling. Again, show me some evidence.

More and more scientist are comming out of the wood work supporting natural climate change every week. Scientist and Climatoligist have been threatened with the sack from their jobs and suffered villification to no end for having an opposing opinion. Its a bit like comming out for a gay guy! the more that come out the more that will.

What, like those from Heartland Institute shindig? http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/what-if-you-held-a-conference-and-no-real-scientists-came/

I will not even try to argue with you because I know the same old tired responses will be forth comming. Even if this thread creates one more person to consider it possibe that the current warming is a mostly natural, then it has been worthwhile raising once again.

Please post something that actually debunks AGW. You have failed to do so.

rod@plasterbrok

14th March 2008, 11:18 PM

About what I would expect Grunt.

I take it you didnt take the time to read the information in the links provided.

Like I said no convincing you and no need to either.

I dont profess to be an expert but I can read and make judgements about what I am reading. I can see beyond the hype and rationalise without an emotional attachment.

I have posted links that I believe support my view you have simply attacked the scource of the information without considering the content therein. Your view, its just rubbish and not to be believed simply because it is published on a particular site. I at least read every article posted on real climate and I have to say I just shake my head in dissbelief on most of it. They base all most of their posts on the premiss that AGW is fact and thats that. Most of their stuff is just hypertheticals given their total belief that Co2 is the main driver behind the .7 deg temperature increase.

I'm yet to read something on that site that I agree with.

BTW G9 there are many other more practical and meanigful ways of spending trillions of dollars to benefit mankind that a witch hunt on co2. Where at least there would be a measureable result.

Grunt

14th March 2008, 11:22 PM

No, I have read all the links that you posted. I didn't read all the link in them tho.

Are you sure you are not the one with the problem with blind spot?

Again, I have been able to debunk each of your debunking. Please post some evidence that actually debunks AGW. You have not done so.

rod@plasterbrok

15th March 2008, 12:08 AM

Yes Grunt I am certain.

But at least I will keep reading both sides and if something meaningfull comes in that can be proven and observed that supports AGW theory I will stand corrected and change my opinion. Will you?

The biggest problem associated with the theory of AGW that I see is:

The science surrounding AGW has been hyjacked by activists and pollitics.
Many claims being made are often fanciful, ludicrous or downright lies.
There are too many with vested interest in carbon trading schemes.
Many pro AGW people are too quick to shut down and ridicule anyone with an opposing view.
Gore will not debate anyone regarding false claims in his film.
Models can not be fully trusted to be acurate particularly 100 years on.
Co2 cannot be reduced by the amounts required without the world grinding to a halt.
Some claims made are too scare people into action without justification.
The extreme push for action when temperature have at worst stabalized is very fishy.
Scientists with opposing views have been threatend with the sack and are not given space in the MSM.
The proccess of the IPCC is more politically based than based on scientific facts.
Anyone who claims the debate is over and that there is no argument has no credibility, they should welcome opposing views so they can dispute them and strenghten their own case. Is it they want to hide the truth?

I could go on but that is enough to cast doubt in my mind, given the other evidence to support a case for natural warming, as opposed to AGW, irrespective of your reluctance to acknowlege that any of those peer reviewed papers have any credibility. Many people do believe they have credibility and like it or not many more will.

These are my own views, not like those quoted direct from something like "how to attack a denier 101"

Mickj

15th March 2008, 12:25 AM

When I was in High School('80s), we learned about the "Atomic Theory"....yes thats right Atomic THEORY. In science everthing is THEORY until it can be proven without doubt. Even today, we study the Theory of "Light". Yes we know light exists, we just can't explain it.

AGW is in the same category. We all accept it as Theory, but the evidence is building up to support it. The problem is that its become a political issue, which why there is so much mis-information being floated by all parties. We all know that CO2 is not the only green-house causing gas, yet it seems to get all the attention. Why??

Scientists use computer models because thats all they have. The quality of the models is only as the good as the data that is fed into them. And yes, there a times when a crystal ball is more accurate. When you know all your variables, and you know the relationship between those variables, then modelling can be quite accurate. I used to do financial modelling. For short term forecasts, we were very accurate. But when you are trying to do long range forecasts, then the level of confidence drops off significantly. Environmental modelling is a million times more complicated than financial modelling(many more variables and not a complete understanding of the relationshops involved). So, much of the predictions about AGW are "guess work", But the more we study and analyse, the more accurate we can get with our predictions.

The real decision is whether we sit and wait or do we do something now??

Grunt

15th March 2008, 08:27 AM

But at least I will keep reading both sides and if something meaningfull comes in that can be proven and observed that supports AGW theory I will stand corrected and change my opinion. Will you?

Yes, my opinion has wavered on this issue over the years.

The science surrounding AGW has been hyjacked by activists and pollitics.

Yes, absolutely. This is why the only sites I get my information are from science sites. I don't pay attention to the blogs of green groups or business focused groups. Both have an agenda.

The science surrounding AGW has been hyjacked by activists and pollitics.
Many claims being made are often fanciful, ludicrous or downright lies.
There are too many with vested interest in carbon trading schemes.
Many pro AGW people are too quick to shut down and ridicule anyone with an opposing view.
Gore will not debate anyone regarding false claims in his film.

Yes. From both sides and it doesn't mean it isn't happening.

Models can not be fully trusted to be acurate particularly 100 years on.

This sort of science cannot 100% accurate. We will never have absolute truth in this. Melding of all models gives us a fairly scary picture.

These are my own views, not like those quoted direct from something like "how to attack a denier 101"

At least from the article and posts that you seem to get your views from sources that are dubious.
Are there any science sites that doubt global warming? If so please post, I would like to read.

There is a chance that GW is not caused by man. If AGW crowd is wrong we would have spent some money and probably cleaned up our environmental act a bit. If they are right however and we do nothing then we owe an explanation to our children as why we have left their world in such a mess. That is if the world is still habitable.

echnidna

16th March 2008, 12:51 PM

This will debate will go on as long as the earth is flat

Gingermick

16th March 2008, 01:59 PM

No, the debate will go on as long as allows:wink:

rod@plasterbrok

16th March 2008, 06:45 PM

I'm done agree or disagree I have made my point.

That is the debate goes on.

jow104

16th March 2008, 06:59 PM

Conspiracy Theory.

But we all know that the earth will get a warm period as has happened in earlier epochs. (without human intervention)

So perhaps vested interests are trying to cut down oil consumption so that their reserves last longer for themselves?

Big Shed

9th April 2008, 10:39 AM

I'm done agree or disagree I have made my point.

That is the debate goes on.

It sure does, found this article (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23509775-2702,00.html) interesting.

dazzler

9th April 2008, 01:12 PM

The last debate on this seamed to die after another forum member posted this link
YouTube - Climate Change - Is CO2 the cause? - Pt 1 of 4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI&feature=related)
Before you go any further why not look at this , unless you are afraid of the facts discussed by a real reputed scientist.

TL
You are wrong pure and simple there is debate among reputed scientists ,
It would apear from your post that any reputed scientists, who disagree with your point of view are wrong and not actually " reputed " at all,
Why you would make the arguement that the only reputed scientists are those who agree with your point of view . Lady you have either a limited knowledge of the facts , a lack of understanding of the facts , or have decided to interperate the information you do have in your own way but your statement that there is no debate among reputed scientists is wrong. :no:

I watched all four episodes twice and was quite interested. He makes some very valid points.

two things struck me though;

1. Cool the arrogance and dont bag out the Australian of the Year (just lessons the impact and lowers his standing)

2. Needs to address what HE believes or at least suspects the PPM increase in carbon will have on the climate. And it will rise, manifestly when china and india really come on line, simply because if you take it from the ground, and burn it, it goes into the atmosphere.

So its fine for him to talk about torpedo's and so on, but there is just too much historical talk (though both sides suffer from this) and not enough about the expected outcomes of putting it in the atmosphere. Perhaps it will do nothing, perhaps not, but to be taken credibly he needs to address this, unless of course I missed it as it was very long :).

But IMO it is really a mute point, reduce as much as we want, but its gonna get used up eventually, and that is the where the problem lies, not with global warming but with the monumental influence that will have on the world. Food production (lack of fertilizer and ability to process) may suffer and that is where it will bite.

Over population and the way we sustain and influence the environment is the elephant in the room.

So even if both sides have good arguements, there is no arguement that oil and coal WILL run out, and when that happens the apocolypse (the non biblical one) will come for a visit, and that is gunna hurt. :(