Environment problems

Rod,

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

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

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

Cheers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mickj

Its all about managing Risk.

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

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

Is it worth the risk ?

---

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Shed

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

---

Well there are swings and roundabouts on home milling.

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dazzler

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

---

well :)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

Well there are swings and roundabouts on home milling.

---

Just as there are on global warming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

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

---

Yes but what about that chainsaw?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

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

---

See biofuel argument above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

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

---

You could have fooled me:o

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

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