Printable View
Sorry rod,
but I think it is neccessary in an intelectually honest debate to either defend an argument presented or withdraw it.
You cant say to yourself "Ill pretent I didnt present" when someone points out that there is strong reason to suspect your source is corrupt.
Astrid
:D:qPeer review is not a perfect system but like democracy - it's the best thing we have.Quote:
Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok
Here is a scholarly site by the American Institute of Physics on climate change. It's a scientifically conservative site but is well set out and reasonably easy to read.
There have been many strong debates by scientists about climate forecasting models. In the early days 70's and early 80's the models were simplistic and variable. A majority pointed towards increases in global warming while a few even pointed to cooling. The various pundits chose the models that suited them and proceeded to tear into each others models for vested interest or other purposes. Gradually the most likely and realistic models surface and survived and developed, In the 90's the increasingly sophisticated models and improved computing power suddenly crystalized the direction of the models - they all started to point up. The next question was how much? Being Mr Conservatives most scientific groups chose modest changes and waited to things to happen.
In the last few years the small changes possible made within the last 10 year period by these ~15 (sometimes quite different) models have all been within the range predicted by scientists. What is concerning is that they are generally on the high side of the predictions. This could mean that the scientists are being too conservative and not providing enough warning. We could wait a bit longer but . . . . . . I better get my milling done before my CS is banned.
Sorry Silent the video did nothing for me!
Astird, SilentC, BobL, et al,
I have express my opinions here on this site in resopnse to the pro AGW argument I have not seen anything here that will change that opinion. Nor do I expect you to be swayed by my opinion as I cannot be swayed by yours.
The argument can go on forever still with neither side conceeding a point. I hope you are as wrong as I am sure you hope I am right. Then the world will be safe once again and we can stop playing God.
Cheers guys!
Didnt think you could point to one. So all the medicines that are not released until the results have been peer reviewed are virtually useless.Quote:
Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok
But putting aside for one minute that you are unable to back up what you say lets look at it this way.
There are a lot of very very smart scientific people in the world who believe that global warming is a fact. There may be just as many very very smart scientific people that may disagree and say its a crock.
But....we only get one chance at this. If we are wrong then there are gunna be issues. They may be big or they may be small. You and I will be okay :), maybe more of our land may become marginal for farming so a few farmers may suffer and our food goes up at coles. No biggie.
But what if you are a farmer in a country like Benin in Africa where we sponsor a young boy. Last year it was hotter than normal and much of thier crops failed. They had enough millett to get them through. What if they have three or four years or it stays at 2deg warmer for good. Would thier 3 month old be able to live if mum doesnt get enough food.
Maybe they wont have anything to eat. Maybe they all die. A wee bit harder for them than us. And if global warming is true then its you, me and all the other rich (by global standards) spoilt brats that did it to them. And just to keep it in focus, we are very much the minority ( I did hear 12% but cant recall where or if its correct but lets at least agree that we are very much the minority) and through our excesses cause the deaths of billions by changing the climate.
And truly what is the worst that can happen if the world adopts a strategy to lower carbon output. The world is a little less polluted? Is that a bad thing? Yep, there may be some inconvenience, but I doubt any of us is walking 5k a day to get a bucket of dirty water to drink so I imagine we could handle a little.
You are right that there is a lot of rubbish out there about global warming. 100m rise what crap. But a 1m rise is just as bad if you live in bangladesh or an idyllic white atoll.
This is how i came to the conclusion that on the balance of probability we are doing something to our planet that isnt natural.
The world uses about 82 million barrells of crude oil a day. So 82 million barrels at 159 litres per barrel is a total of 13 038 000 000 litres of oil that is burnt every single day. And thats not even counting coal or gas!
Where does it all go? Into the atmosphere where we live.:C
Can that be good? Hell if I fart in the lounge room the place is polluted so how does 13 billions litres a day affect the world. I aint no scientist but I dont think its a good thing.
cheers
dazzler
I'm not on 'a side'. You seem to have a very polarised view of things. Nobody is suggesting that we play God (how do we do that anyway?). What is being suggested is that we do something to try and help mitigate the effects (if any) of climate change.Quote:
The argument can go on forever still with neither side conceeding a point.
You keep missing the point. You obviously have not taken in the guy's point in those videos. You are adamant that the 'pro-AGW argument' as you put it is bull. If you had taken in any of what he was trying to say, you would realise that you cannot say that, any more than a 'pro-AGW' person can say to you "this is what will happen". I'm sorry that you don't get that.
What you are doing is putting up a straw man argument so you can try to tear it down. You're saying "you pro-AGW people have no hard proof that global warming is anything other than a fraud". But no-one has ever said they had proof. That's the whole point. You can't prove anything, you can only disprove it. If you watched all three of those "Nature of Science" videos, you would understand that.
The whole point of the debate is, given we have a very large number of scientists and scientific organisations supporting the theory that global warming is taking place and that we can potentially do something about it, should we try. Your response is "I think it's all a fraud, so we should do nothing because nothing is going to happen". Forgive me if I put my faith in people who actually know what they are talking about and don't just base their opinions and therefore their actions on a gut feeling.
Did you watch the bit where he talks about the guy who wont admit he is wrong? That's the guy you sound like when you say "I have not seen anything here that will change that opinion. Nor do I expect you to be swayed by my opinion as I cannot be swayed by yours." Do you at least concede that you could be wrong? Or are you so sure of it that you are willing to stake your kids and grandkids futures on it? I wish I could be so certain about things.
Bob, I agree with you, however that is not how ethanol is being produced is it?Quote:
Originally Posted by BobL
Have a look at the number of relatively small ethanol plants in the US using corn/canola as feedstock.
Personally I find it obscene that people can take a foodstuff such as corn and canola and then use it to fuel their Jeep Cherokee or indeed Toyota Prius and let the poor people starve.
Your idea of using Acacias is a good one, on the surface, I haven't seen the science on it. Is it being used commercially, or is just "pie in the sky at present"?
That's the reason I used the Toyota Prius as an example of well meaning people trying to do something for the environment. All it really is is a very clever marketing campaign by Toyota. There is plenty of info to be found on the web that give the facts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waldo
The point I was making is, is that is very hard for well meaning people, and I hope that is the majority, to make decisions on what to buy and what to use without proper unbiased facts to look at.
I used the star system for energy and water use as an example, it works very well, even though it may be simplistic at times. Look at sales of front loading washing machines, they have sky rocketed largely because people were made aware of water efficient they are.
If the same information was given about, say plasma screens (admittedly one of my pet hates, so I'm biased), the sales of said plasma screens would plummet.
At the end of the day most people want the best for future generations, it is when the debate gets hi-jacked by hypocritical re-cycled politicians that the waters get muddied.
I happen to believe the scientists that are telling me there is global warming taking place. I also believe the scientists that are telling me this is part of a natural cycle have a more compelling argument than the scientists that tell me that it is entirely man-made.
Even Kevin07 is not prepared to risk the Australian economy on their science, yet.
He may have (symbolically) signed Kyoto, but that is as far as he is prepared to go.
Thats how the US is producing it yea, and that is down to a lot of lobbying by the farmers to get subsidies to do it that way.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Shed
What Bob is suggesting is for how Australia could do it, as Australia doesn't currently have a biofuel market as such. The creation/growth of such a market would be driven by any govt subsidies. If the subsidies can go in the correct direction yes we could do it, but knowing how our political system works, the farmers federation would end up taking over the debate and we would end up in the same place as the US (I'm not cynical, I'm worse than that im resigned)
Do these people exist? I don't think anyone would really suggest that it's an entirely man-made phenomenon. If I had to 'pick a side' I'd say that assuming there is a problem, we aren't helping at all.Quote:
the scientists that tell me that it is entirely man-made
You want to get into the motivations of politicians now? In any case, it shouldn't be a question of what Kevin Rudd is or is not prepared to do. It's not a decision that should be made by any one person, let alone a politician.Quote:
Even Kevin07 is not prepared to risk the Australian economy on their science, yet.
G'day Big Shed,Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Shed
I agree with you, both on the Prius and Kev07.
Isn't it funny that after polling to the masses he realises that there is a cost associated to cutting emmisons down by x% - it's why the US has balked at a firm figure. (similarly too the way he isn't pulling out of Iraq yet until at least 2010. The truth of being in opposition is different to that of being in government)
Spot on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mickj
There is a world of opportunity to create a happy healthy and sustainable human population into the future.
We just need to grab it with both hands.
I agree corn and canola have far more value as food and as feed stock and that is what it should do. We also should not be burning oil - oil has a far greater value as a chemical feedstock for making plastics etc. In 100 years time our great/great grandchildren will laugh at us for burning a substantial reservoir of our petrochemical reserves.Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Shed
Acacias are the subject of a nation wide Commonwealth Research Centre Study. There are over 100 scientists and economists working on this. An advanced study has assessed the feasibility and a pilot plant is being constructed in South. West WA. There are around a dozen products that come out of the production loop depending on market forces including acacia oil (worth $9 litre to pharmaceutical industry), wood pellets, bio diesel, and nice acacia timbers. The cost of the diesel is dependent on the cost of special enzymes. which is where the research effort is a the moment.
Smart Biofuels (especially not palm oil, canola, or corn) are not THE answer but they appear to be part of the solution.
Silnetc, you can't have two bob each way, if it isn't man-made, then by definition there isn't much we can do about it.Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
I'm not saying we shouldn't try and stop pollution and use better energy sources, but if global warming isn't man made then that isn't going to help is it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
I thought this whole debate was about the motivations of politicians!:rolleyes:
At the end of the day, they are the ones, for better or for worse, that are going to put the systems in place to fix this problem, who else, the scientists?
God help us all.
I'm not having a go at Kevin07 here, like Waldo said, he's just found out that reality doesn't match theory. It is one thing to snipe from the opposition benches, it is quite another to have to deal with the real world.
Welcome to the real world Kevin07.:rolleyes:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobL
Thanks for that Bob, do you have a link where I can read more about that, sounds like a very worthwhile project. Anything to produce biofuels, as long as we don't take food out of people's mouths.
Who told you that? There must be hundreds of examples of man-made solutions to natural problems.Quote:
if it isn't man-made, then by definition there isn't much we can do about it.
If you're going to take that line, we might as well just join Rod and pretend it's not happening.
Part of the problem I think is that people believe we can stop a natural process - or think that's what people want to try to do. I don't think that's what is being suggested. We can do things to stop making it worse. We may even reverse things a little. But I think most of the effort needs to go into preparing for what's to come, not trying to stop it, because I don't know if we can.
But I am delving a little bit into an area that I should stay away from, because as I've tried to point out to Rod, the whole field is so complicated that there's no way you or I can be across and understand all of the issues and the science involved. I really do believe it is a matter of trusting the scientific community as a whole to come up with solutions. Where else are you going to put your faith?
If they are lying to us for some so far undisclosed motive, well what can we do. The alternative is to do nothing just in case they are lying. But what if they're not?