Our forest is doomed and we cannot stop it from dying

[kenmil]

Originally posted by DavidG
Ken
Suggest you look up Coral Bleaching.

See http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/corp_site/i...nce/bleaching/

Yeah sure. The "doom" I was referring to was the Crown of Thorns Starfish. Coral bleaching is the next thing they came up with after the starfish failed to deliver them their "end of the world" prediction. These wankers keep themselves in a job with this sort of "scientific study".

For every one of them there is another scientist who will tell you that global warming is a nonsense with no credible evidence to support it. I prefer the more positive view.

[rodm]

Science is knowledge - its the wallies that get hold of that knowledge and make the predictions that cause the problems. Nature is so complex it is unlikely we will ever understand the full interaction - probably a good thing otherwise we will see more multinationals exploiting our planet where most pay and a few gain. Sound like a greenie? Not really just somebody who has lost faith in the system that places dollars above humanity.
Too much doom and gloom so Neil I think you have the right answer - long live rock'n'roll and may the sheep keep in tune.

[ozwinner]

Originally posted by rodm
long live rock'n'roll and may the sheep keep in tune.

Must be a Kiwi, bringing sheep into it.

[Zed]

Theres a show on (ABC or SBS ?) this week in Sydney by the eminent Dr David Suzuki - Canadian naturalist - who deserves the upmost respect from all (IMHO)...

anyway the show is about how as we developed into an industrial age we stopped caring for the environment and abandoned the traditional ways to the detriment of the environment----> but now it seems that science and technology are reincorporating the ancient traditions and the sciences themselves are re-evolving to be more earth friendly.

I supose earth itself wont give up on itself - we are but short lived aemeboas on its great self. it will take greater than the human race to kill our humble but mighty planet... Whats the analogy ? if you compressed the livespan of the earth into a single 24hrs we humans have only been around for the last minute if the last hour....

I remember another show that documented the wax and wane of the ice ages and the opposing swelling and shrinking of the forests of the world with said ice ages - if this is to be believed then the forests grow and shrink like accordians.... hence if we bring about the next ice age by global warming then we can only accelerate the return of mighty forests - imagine... all our decendants will be issued with slabbing machines at birth.. )

[silentC]

Some people say that it man's greatest conceit that he actually believes he has ANY impact on the workings of the planet. You only have to look at your backyard after you've been away for a few weeks to realise that nature has an uncanny knack of fighting back.

There's probably only one way we can really stuff the place properly and that's to push the button. Even that would probably only wipe us out and allow the rest of the place to get on with things.

Even so, it is a shame to see all those forests and species disappearing in our life time. There's no doubt that we make a mess.

[adrian]

rodm.

All I can say is, what kind of person has the patience to hang around the **** end of a kangaroo long enough to be able to say with any authority that they don't fart.
As for what to do to repair the damage we are doing. I would like to see the government buy a large parcel of cheap farmland and every time a developer wants to clear some valuable coastal land for a development he has to purchase an equivalent area of the farmland and pay to have it planted with australian native trees. That way the government gets their (our) money back over time and everybody is happy. The developer will find it easier to develop land and farmland, which probably used to be forest, can be returned to it's former state.

[Bob Willson]

This article appeared in the Courier Mail on 22-2-2001 in their perspectives column

Hot air over Greenhouse
Larry Mounser

“Nice weather,” has to be the most boring conversation starter on Earth. But meteorologists and climatologists now think they've cottoned on to something that can make them more interesting than accountants at parties.

"Sure the weather might be nice now" They reply, standing up and pounding the table. "But soon we're all going to die...”

A new United Nations report this week blamed the production of carbon dioxide for global warming and climate change, predicting devastating weather changes ahead...tropical island paradises and glistening alpine skiing retreats lost to future generations, melting ice caps, falling crop yields. I'm sceptical.

Solicitors and purveyors of insurance love small print and, when it comes to keeping themselves employed, so do some scientists. The latest UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report is a prime example. Such IPCC reports are the backbone of the Greenhouse lobby's argument.

But they're a sham. The latest report contained a lengthy Summary for Policy Makers that pronounced in bold type that: "The global-average surface temperature has increased over the 20th century by about 0.6deg C"

How can you accurately make such fine measurements across the whole varied planet? But it doesn't stop there: "Since the start of the satellite record in 1979, both satellite and weather balloon measurements show the global average temperature of the lowest 8km of the atmosphere has changed by .05 plus or minus 0.10deg C per decade." That's outrageous. The margin for error (0.10deg C) is twice as high as the reading.

Would you accept a car with a speedo that indicated that you were heading down the road at 180km/h while simultaneously saying that you were going backwards at 180km/h? In fact, the report showed the temperature of the atmosphere could have actually gone down by 0.05deg C

How much did those satellites and weather balloons cost in a world where children routinely die for want of the cheapest medicines? Next time you're measuring your 3-year-old's growth on the wall, you can say: "Well, we think you've grown by 5cm but you might have shrunk because we're really not that good at measuring. We will of course, be spending your pocket money on further research."

The most astonishing statements are about the supposedly shrinking Antarctic ice sheets and rising sea levels. Guess what? Apparently the ice cap is getting bigger and the rate of the sea-level rise has not changed since industrialisation. "The Antarctic ice sheet is likely to gain mass because of greater precipitation. No significant trends of Antarctic sea-ice extent are apparent since 1978, the period of reliable satellite measurements. Within present uncertainties, observations and models are both consistent with a lack of significant acceleration of sea level rise during the 20th century.

But isn't the Antarctic ice sheet supposed to be shrinking and drowning everyone because of nasty old human-produced carbon dioxide? Isn't that what this is all about?
The document chooses to emphasise, in bold, all the likelihoods that the temperature is rising and that humans are to blame.

At the same time, it downplays material within the text which indicates they are not 100 percent sure; the information is mixed; sampling is limited; there are still unknowns and significant parts of the research still has margins of error that make it useless.

So what do the "many hundreds" of scientists who are earning a living researching the Greenhouse fiasco finally recommend? More research.

The 10-year old with the possible growth problems would see straight through that and would have every right to say; "Not with my piggy bank you don't." No wonder there are scientists who have refused to be associated with previous IPCC reports because of the cynical way they have been edited to keep the greenhouse bogy alive.
Chemical pollution, overpopulation, species depletion, human greed and misery are real problems on this planet. I'm proud our government is standing up to this nonsense.

Larry Mounser, who has worked as a geophysicist is a research fellow at the University of NSW.

[kenmil]

Go Larry !!!!!

[Ben from Vic.]

I just have a small question.

Echnida, are you a woodworker?

Ben.

[Robert WA]

In a few hundred million years from now the earth, together with its forests, will be consumed by our sun.

Tongue in cheek. What then is the point of conservation?

I am reading a book at the moment, "A Short History of Planet Earth" by Ian Plimer. It talks about time spans of 10,000s, 100,000s 1,000,000s of years and it suggests that our era is just a blink of the eye in terms of the total life of the planet. Interesting, and well worth the read.

[rodm]

Adrian,
The reference to animals farting was just a joke.
I like the idea about developers having to offset new developments by revegetation of land. Unfortunately we the purchasers are the reason developers make land available. They are only meeting our needs and unless we change our attitude it will never happen. It is convenient to blame the government but if what you suggest was enforced by a government wouldn't the higher prices as a result of the policy also be blamed on the government? Sort of damned it you do damned if you don't.

Bob,
To quote one article on Greenhouse Emission is not conclusive proof that there isn't a problem but it does bring comfort to those who read it. To suggest that there is a conspiracy of scientists to promote climate change to preserve their research is outrageous. In the scientific circles there is an majority view that the Greenhouse Effect is real. I have no idea if it is real or not but logically I can see how it could be evolving so I am happy for those self centred scientists to keep gathering information.

This is all too depressing and much easier to bury the head in the sand. I will assume the bike rack position until nature calls.

[Bob Willson]

What you say may well be true Rodm but I haven't noticed anybody refuting the refutation.

How many articles do I need?

[rodm]

Bob,
The article is one person’s opinion; it is simplistic and has holes in it.
Here's one example
Quote
The Antarctic ice sheet is likely to gain mass because of greater precipitation.

Does this not suggest a change in climate? It is convenient for the author to accept the theory to strengthen his argument but refutes all other claims.
To be branded with the same simplistic tactic I could quote the history of smoking - scientific research into smoking proved conclusively that it was a health risk. Until this was proven there was a stong auguement from the tobacco industry and smokers that refuted smoking was a health risk.
The greenhouse issue is complex and if you did read articles from proponents of the greenhouse theories you may well see it in a different light. The author does not explain how carbon dioxide and other gases are converted back to oxygen given the depletion of trees. Perhaps the world doesn't need as many trees as it once had to do the job but wouldn't it be nice to know in case the theories are correct?
By the way the Australian Government and states are taking climate change seriously and contribute to research on greenhouse matters. It is dangerous to ignore such a serious issue.
I'm sure it won't hurt to replace a bit of vegetation as insurance and if it turns out to be a hoax then at the very least the ascetics of our countryside will have improved.

For me I will keep an open mind on it and hope that the theories are wrong.

[Bob Willson]

Hi Rod
Of course the article is one persons opinion. He has however done some resaerch and has even read the report put out by the UN resaerch org. I haven't and I doubt that a large percentage of others have either.

Quote
The Antarctic ice sheet is likely to gain mass because of greater precipitation.

I believe that you misunderstood this particular part of the article. He is actually quoting from the report here and this is not his own opinion but the UN teams opinion. He is of the opinion that the ice cap is actually stable.
ie

No significant trends of Antarctic sea-ice extent are apparent since 1978, the period of reliable satellite measurements. Within present uncertainties, observations and models are both consistent with a lack of significant acceleration of sea level rise during the 20th century.

So what he is actually saying is that the UN is saying that the ice cap is getting bigger (due to increased precipitation) While at the same time they (the UN) are saying that it is shrinking due to global warming. ie they want it both ways.

Re the smoking argument: I believe that everybody knew that smoking hurt people, they just couldn't prove it. Proof was necessary before any action could be taken in a court of law. People still smoke even though they are now able to be shown proof of the harm it does them. Most intelligent people have now stopped. Evolution will help to weed these people out.

I'm sure it won't hurt to replace a bit of vegetation as insurance and if it turns out to be a hoax then at the very least the ascetics of our countryside will have improved.

Right on Rod, I'm with you all the way here. I believe that mankind is the biggest blight that is currently on the face of the earth. We MUST start to limit our population and growth rates. The Chinese have started already and are doing a great job in that area despite world opinion of them. We here in Australia are also doing a good job (thanks to the pill) and we actually have a negative population growth from our current birth rates although we are still growing due to our import of new blood.

I'm not against what you are saying, I just don't believe everything that I'm told just because it was told to me by some august body or person.

[Goldy]

Like Robert said -Mate, have another beer and let nature do its own thing.

Instead of one have two. End of the day its out of our hands.