I'm sick of hearing GLOBAL WARMING AGGHHH

[namtrak]

I'm not sure about all of this, but I do know one thing which is my motivation.

When I'm taking my dirt nap I don't want my kids to tell their kids that their grandfather was told about global warming in 2007, but he chose to do nothing about it.

Regardless of wether there is global warming or not, I believe it is a moot point. Either way we should ALL be teaching our kids about sustainability, self-sufficiency and independence - basic skills whichever way you look at it.

[reeves]

Some inetresting posts.

I doubt if anyones gonna hear the end of global warming for a while.
Its very real issue,a complex one, as old as the earth itself but humans have only been measuring it or pumping out C02 for a short time in evolutionary terms

Wiki has a good basic rundown on it

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decades and its projected continuation.
Global average air temperature near the Earth's surface rose 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.3 ± 0.32 °F) during the past century. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concludes, "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations,"^[1] which leads to warming of the surface and lower atmosphere by increasing the greenhouse effect. Natural phenomena such as solar variation combined with volcanoes have probably had a small warming effect from pre-industrial times to 1950, but a small cooling effect since 1950.^[2][3] These basic conclusions have been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The American Association of Petroleum Geologists is the only scientific society that rejects these conclusions,^[4][5] and a few individual scientists also disagree with parts of them.^[6]

and the Weather Makers book by Tim Flannery is definaltey worth reading

http://www.theweathermakers.com/

the global warming art site is cool and has heaps of graphs and other data

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/

[Sturdee]

I'm not sure about all of this, but I do know one thing which is my motivation.

When I'm taking my dirt nap I don't want my kids to tell their kids that their grandfather was told about global warming in 2007, but he chose to do nothing about it.

Regardless of wether there is global warming or not, I believe it is a moot point. Either way we should ALL be teaching our kids about sustainability, self-sufficiency and independence - basic skills whichever way you look at it.

Well said.

If we do something about it, the world will be a better place for our grandchildren.

If we don't I think that future generations will hate us for our complacency and emu attitude.


Peter.

[Studley 2436]

Where is the evidence, show us the money!

what is very well known throughout the scientific community, is that higher resolution studies of the same ice cores revealed that the temperature changes came first then were followed by changes in CO2. (Mudelsee, 2001; Clark, 2003; Vakulenko et al., 2004)

Studley

[woodbe]

Why do you guys treat this like a holy mantra?

Studley

Well, probably for the same reasons you don't.

I actually don't treat it as a holy mantra. It has been a topic of interest to me for a lot longer than the current media frenzy. Like you, I'm no scientist, but there are two things in my thinking that lead me to accept the pro global warming as the most probable scenario:

1) We humans are consuming the planetary resources at an exponentially growing rate, and we have identified and measured the effects of that consumption on the atmosphere, oceans and land.

2) The scientific community has been steadily and increasingly declaring their support for the existence of human-mediated climate change. Especially those scientists working in the field of atmospheric science.

As mere mortals, we often get bombarded with the alternative viewpoint from scientists with very important sounding credentials. One of the tests that I think is worth doing, is to find out if their credentials are in the field of atmospherics, because that's where the argument is at.

Labeling the whole pro viewpoint as some sort of conspiracy manipulation of the public is a very convenient method of abrogating personal responsibility for our actions and their effects on our planet.

The ozone hole is a good example of human impact on the planet and our ability to work together to do something about it. You do know that it has stopped growing since CFC's were virtually eliminated worldwide by the Montreal Protocol? That all developed nations co-operated and found ways of getting developing nations on board so that stringent targets could be met? That there were accusations of 'speculative science' and economic damage directed at the pro-ozone depletion scientific community when they went public with their theory. Amazingly, (not), the nay-sayers went strangely quiet when the ozone hole appeared over Antarctica.

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s703932.htm

It's not the same with global warming (it's never the same), but there are striking parallels in our responses to the news of a new threat to our established way of life.

I guess I'd rather be wrong supporting doing something now than right supporting doing nothing. I'm not much of a gambler, and we actually need this planet to be really supportive of life until the boffins can find another one

woodbe.

[DakotaGurl]

Well, probably for the same reasons you don't.

I actually don't treat it as a holy mantra. It has been a topic of interest to me for a lot longer than the current media frenzy. Like you, I'm no scientist, but there are two things in my thinking that lead me to accept the pro global warming as the most probable scenario:

1) We humans are consuming the planetary resources at an exponentially growing rate, and we have identified and measured the effects of that consumption on the atmosphere, oceans and land.

2) The scientific community has been steadily and increasingly declaring their support for the existence of human-mediated climate change. Especially those scientists working in the field of atmospheric science.

As mere mortals, we often get bombarded with the alternative viewpoint from scientists with very important sounding credentials. One of the tests that I think is worth doing, is to find out if their credentials are in the field of atmospherics, because that's where the argument is at.

Labeling the whole pro viewpoint as some sort of conspiracy manipulation of the public is a very convenient method of abrogating personal responsibility for our actions and their effects on our planet.

The ozone hole is a good example of human impact on the planet and our ability to work together to do something about it. You do know that it has stopped growing since CFC's were virtually eliminated worldwide by the Montreal Protocol? That all developed nations co-operated and found ways of getting developing nations on board so that stringent targets could be met? That there were accusations of 'speculative science' and economic damage directed at the pro-ozone depletion scientific community when they went public with their theory. Amazingly, (not), the nay-sayers went strangely quiet when the ozone hole appeared over Antarctica.

http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s703932.htm

It's not the same with global warming (it's never the same), but there are striking parallels in our responses to the news of a new threat to our established way of life.

I guess I'd rather be wrong supporting doing something now than right supporting doing nothing. I'm not much of a gambler, and we actually need this planet to be really supportive of life until the boffins can find another one

woodbe.

woodbe,

Well said, bless you.

Heather

[Bleedin Thumb]

Its hard to believe in global warming today as I sit here freezin my ass off!


Come on summmerrrr!!!!

[Studley 2436]

As mere mortals, we often get bombarded with the alternative viewpoint from scientists with very important sounding credentials. One of the tests that I think is worth doing, is to find out if their credentials are in the field of atmospherics, because that's where the argument is at.

I guess I'd rather be wrong supporting doing something now than right supporting doing nothing.
woodbe.

I think you make my point rather well Woodbe. The debate right now is mostly atmosperics aka propaganda.

Now considering weather can't be predicted a couple weeks out how is it the radical side can predict it 50 years in advance?

We know CO2 is rising. We know also the Earth is getting warmer. It has been too easy to make the assumption that it must be mans fault. Beyond the chest beating and wailing that we must save the planet for our children a reasoned and dry eyed approach would be much more beneficial.

Studley

[Bleedin Thumb]

Studley, thought you might find this interesting. It explians the makeup and the brief of the recently released UN report on climate change.


Recognizing the problem of potential global climate change, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) established the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988. It is open to all members of the
UN and WMO. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.

This report prepared by the worlds top meteorologists AKA blokes that know about "atmospherics" consisted of 145 eminent scientists and was reveiwed line by line by hundreds of other scientists.

This process would have produced a "watered down" picture of where we are and where we are headed with the climate as no ultra radical viewpoint would stand out.
In spite of this process the report states that climate warming is rising faster than the previous models predicted and that the socio-economic side effects of this increase will be horrendious if we do'nt take radical action now to halt and reduce CO2 emmissions.


Obviously I stand in the "believe" camp. I have a scientific background which may help, but I can see why such a large percentage of the population may be cynical.... Our own political leaders have been feeding us the line of "don't believe the greenies" crap for years.

If you look closely at Bush's and Howards motivation for denying Global warming you may realise its not the scientists that have been having a lend of us ... its our political leaders.

[woodbe]

Au Contraire dear Studley,

You make your own points, and have already made them very clear.

What are you going to do if the Atmospheric Scientists turn out to be more reliable over 50+ years than your local weather man is over a few days?

I'm not understanding how anything I have said thus far can be construed as 'chest beating and wailing', but there you go.

woodbe.

[rod@plasterbrok]

Sorry guys, but there has been so much overstating of facts and inuendo by claiming if, buts and maybe's to reach the current conclusion of pro man made global warming, that it is impossible to know who to believe.

I agree it is a worth while goal to reduce Co2 and other polutants as a matter of course.

But I don't agree that we should do this at a massive cost to society on the premise of global warming.

There are too many arguments against man made global warming to ignore to just except the mantra of the greens.

I think too many people have made up their minds and are now oblivious to any new statistical and scientific eveidence to the contrary.

Cheers

[woodbe]

I think too many people have made up their minds and are now oblivious to any new statistical and scientific eveidence to the contrary.

Rod,

Are you including or excluding yourself from that group of people?

Regards,

woodbe.

[dazzler]

Sorry guys, but there has been so much overstating of facts and inuendo by claiming if, buts and maybe's to reach the current conclusion of pro man made global warming, that it is impossible to know who to believe.

I agree it is a worth while goal to reduce Co2 and other polutants as a matter of course.

But I don't agree that we should do this at a massive cost to society on the premise of global warming.

There are too many arguments against man made global warming to ignore to just except the mantra of the greens.

I think too many people have made up their minds and are now oblivious to any new statistical and scientific eveidence to the contrary.

Cheers

I Rod

With respect, and I know thats sounds condescending but I dont mean it to be, this is not a greens issue.

Though the greens may get a lot of the media reporting I think we all tend to miss the dedicated and unbiased scientists that are behind a lot of the research. If you have not already watched the program CRUDE then I really suggest you watch it at online at

http://www.abc.net.au/science/crude/

At times a little dry, these scientists are hardly doomsayers like many seem to think those that speak out about global warming are.

The same is similar with any arguements about politicians.

The simple fact IMO is that the govt of the day has to drag its feet because to act in any serious manner will have them kicked out because we humans dont want to change our lifestyles and the opposition will make grandiose claims that they will go back on once in power.

So I am backing the scientists, not on face value but on spending time reviewing and trying to understand the facts from thier studies, and hoping that like a big wave public opinion continues to press.

Overall I look at it this way.

If we do nothing and the scientists are right then we are going to suffer, the extent of that may be slight discomfort at the bowser through to the end of the human way of life.

Or we do as much as we can, which may include a lot of changes in our lives, and at least the environment is a lot cleaner.

cheers

dazzler

[rod@plasterbrok]

It is the greens that whip it up into a frenzy of unbelievable distortion of the real facts.

I agree with you go with the scientist. But we need to take an objective view of both sides of the science.

There are many disclaiming man made Global Warming. What I am sick of is that alarmists are saying the jury is out and no further discussion.

I don't believe any one truly knows the facts and to be totally one eyed about it right now is not good.

I am still open minded about it all just not convinced. It concerns me when outlandish claims are made to frighten people. An there is a lot of that going around.

I don't disagree with the need to cut down on pollution in general. We will all be better off for it. We just dont need the knee jerk reactions from the pollies that will spend billions of dollars with no result.

In Australia we could cut our Co2 emissions completly and it wont make a scrap of difference globally. Unless the Soviets, China and India also reduce their emissions we are wasting our money.

You should watch The Great Global Warming Swindle type it into Google.
It gives another scientific view.

[dazzler]

Yep, saw it before,

thats the one with the FORD sponsership.....

http://www.channel4.com/science/micr.../expert_1.html

MMMMM..... no vested interest there I spose

But I will do some homework and have another look