Climate change

[Peter Ward]

I'd have to say when a newspaper like the Washington Post runs today with a story highlighting this report.

http://www.globalchange.gov/publicat...s/key-findings

It's probably time to sit up and take notice....

[dpastern (Dave Pastern)]

Anyone with an essence of common sense will have realised that man has introduced a myriad of issues to our environment. Sadly, we still have a bunch of people who stubbornly refuse to believe that man is damaging his (and other species) environment.

Worse, even though some governments are recognising the issues, none are doing anything about it.

1) The US is doing bugger all, and everyone waits for the US to do things first...

2) changing the way we live in this world means, unfortunately, massive problems with global economies. Countries like the US would rather keep polluting the world in order to make a buck. This is hopefully changing with President Obama. Call me a pessimist, but don't hold your breath.

The real crux of this issue is that we simply have far too many humans on this planet to support. The problem is created by over breeding, tampering with longevity, tampering with diseases that are designed by nature to cull the population.

As Agent Smith said in the Matrix, humans are like viruses - we take without thought. I might sound anti social when I say it, but in reality, and that's what I'm dealing with, it's the truth. Most humans are so enamoured of the current system that they will adamantly refuse to acknowledge any responsibility for our population numbers. And herein lies the problem. Our brains are too large for our own good.

Dave

[troypiggo (Troy)]

Originally Posted by dpastern

Our brains are too large for our own good.

Sadly, mine isn't. Just ask my wife.

[Glenhuon (Bill)]

My own feelings are the human race will stay true to type and do too little too late and have change forced upon us. Our brains may be too big, but our vision is narrow.

Bill

[Peter Ward]

The heard mentality is really not good for deciding on critical actions.

The system seems flawed to me when technical decisions are being made along populist lines, when this clearly would be an insane way to say, conduct open heart surgery e.g.

"Hands up all those who think we should cut 'ere"

Similarly our home planet now faces stress. The key finding in the linked report was: Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced

How much more blunt could they be?

Yet our Pollies, media outlets and those who think thermodynamics is just hype (radio 2gb for example) still argue the Titanic could not sink.

[Omaroo (Chris Malikoff)]

Originally Posted by dpastern

The problem is created by over breeding, tampering with longevity, tampering with diseases that are designed by nature to cull the population.

I agree with this one point you make. I've always believed (rather than known, as you do) that humans are designed with a built-in fragility designed to keep our numbers down naturally. Research into disease is probably going to bite us on the bum in the end.

As for the rest - I'm still utterly unconvinced that either side of this little debate is correct. It will take time to prove it either way - and the science is irrefutable.

[Paddy (Patrick)]

Originally Posted by dpastern

As Agent Smith said in the Matrix, humans are like viruses - we take without thought.
Dave

I think we're more like a cancer. We just keep growing regardless of the systems that would normally control us, evading natural limits. putting pressure on other systems and producing toxins that damage our host.

It's all very depressing! A nice telescope and dark skies certainly help to keep a chap sane.

[ngcles]

Hi Peter & All,

Without entering into debate over this subject whch has such a capacity to cause strife, I'd simply suggest that people get a hold of a copy of Professor Ian Plimer's recent book "Heaven & Earth" and have a good read.

You can get it at Border Books.

There is much truth therein.


Best,

Les D

[astronut (John)]

Whilst we may be experiencing "Climate Change" we should be very careful as individuals, as a country and world, that we don't fall into the "religion" that has formed around this phenomena.
We may very well be sealing the economic doom of this planet, if we (governments) listen only to the fringe element or "high priests" concerning C.C.
Unfortunately, all round the world, well meaning people that are trying to be kinder to our planet are being sucked into the claws of the panic merchants.
Should we have a cleaner and more habitable and sustainable planet for current and future generations? YES!!!
Just be sure not to achieve that, by making a deal with the devil.

[astroron (Ron)]

We may very well be sealing the economic doom of this planet, if we (governments) listen only to the fringe element or "high priests" concerning C.C.



Didn't we nearly just do that even without taking climate change into account.

[astronut (John)]

Touche, Ron.

[Peter Ward]

Originally Posted by ngcles

Professor Ian Plimer's recent book "Heaven & Earth" and have a good read............There is much truth therein.

Best,

Les D

The problem I have with Ian's book is that he claims every scientific argument ever used to show that humans change climate is wrong
(some 2000+ of them)

No doubt some are. The early climate change science used some very dodgy data indeed.

But in 2009 when a body representing the US departments of Defence, Commerce, Energy, NASA, National Science Foundation, Smithsonian...well almost all of them...still says "Huston, we have a problem"

I tend to believe them rather than a retired Adeliade Uni Teacher (of mining no less!) or invoke a conspiracy.

Most of Plimer's claims have been rubutted here http://www.frogworth.com/stuart/blog/?p=88

[Bassnut (Fred)]

Well, its too late now anyway. I was stunned at how little CO2 was contributed by industrial activity, its trivial compared to agriculture and melting permafrost (old decaying plantage under it). The former wont change, and latter is well underway.

[avandonk]

Ian Plimers book is at best a very vague attempt at denigrating climate change caused by US! Most of his references do not back up his assertions derived from them. The man is a total fraud for this work of fiction and I will stand by this statement in a court of law. I honestly do not care at all for myself as I have at best twenty years of life left. It is your/our children and grandchildren .....

The real problem is that all you good folks that do not have degrees in science can be conned by a charletan in the pay of the fossil fuel lobbies.

As for that uniformed senator F. that thinks that he has discovered the Sun may have an influence on weather. He is a twit of the first order.
We can only look at long term trends over many decades to see if the climate is changing. Not by picking the hottest year on record and then trying to devine a trend over a mere ten years that then follows.

Would you fly in an airliner designed by a geologist or an aeronautical engineer. Or worse piloted by some faith dependant person or a fully trained experienced pilot. Because that is exactly the choice you all have right now.

Bert

[AstralTraveller (David)]

Originally Posted by ngcles

Hi Peter & All,

Without entering into debate over this subject whch has such a capacity to cause strife, I'd simply suggest that people get a hold of a copy of Professor Ian Plimer's recent book "Heaven & Earth" and have a good read.

You can get it at Border Books.

There is much truth therein.


Best,

Les D

Unfortunately Les there isn't much truth therein and what is there is largely irrelevant. I'm sorry to have to say that because I did have a good opinion of him from his past record in debunking other falsehoods. Some of his statements on palaeoclimate leave those who work in the field wondering whether to laugh or cry. An expert on sea level I know pointed out how he had selectively used data which has now been discredited while ignoring well-known robust data sets. There are now web sites (I ldon't have the URL at hand) devoted to exposing his falacies.

But the thing that really takes the cake is his claim that climate change researchers are involved in a massive hoax. That is about as plausible as the moon landing hoax. It is also a massive calumnity that I hope will see him in court. Scientists can be wrong and a few are corrupt but to make such claims about hundreds if not thousands of individuals is beyond the pale. (BTW The reason we know some scientists are corrupt is that they are outed by their peers. There was even a case a couple of years ago where a medical researcher was outed by his own research assistants. You can be sure that if I found anyone massaging or misrepresenting data that I had generated I would shout it from the rooftops.)

I'm not strongly pro or anti climate change but I do very strongly believe in an honest debate.

[chris lewis]

Man made global warming is one of the largest scams invented. This 'myth' is perpetuated by various politically based media and international institutions like the IPCC.
It is not based on science but money, politics, 'green' manipulation and mis-information, social engeneering and control. The current pure science data coming through is only reinforcing this. Some posters here keep on perpetuating this myth. As 'scientists' we need to look at the actual science the current data to date and to use critical thinking skills and some common sense. Sorry if I sound strong re. this issue - I come from a 30 year background of science and teaching.

Chris

[TrevorW]

As a group we can and should support dark sky which I'm sure we all do.

In a way we can be pro-active instead of reactive to an issue that affects us all.

Maybe this forum should create a petition which could be passed on too pollies with the words

"We will not vote for you again unless you do something to address this issue......."

I'm still waiting on a response from the PM (email sent 6 months ago) regarding the amount of greenhouse gases produced by street lights burning all night.

Recently I asked out council to have the street lights turned off after 12 which they can do via the state energy supplier.

this is what I got back

"For community safety and for motorists and pedestrians Council will not alter the operational hours of the streetlight.

Council may, if it is possible consider shading the back of the streetlight but that will have to be further investigated. If it is possible Council may require a letter for your neighbour to shading the light."

[avandonk]

Anyone that says that AGW is a fraud is severely deluded. I have a degree in physics and have worked at the top of all fields I was associated with for the last forty years. It only takes a cursory inspection of all the data to infer what is happening. If you do not understand how our climate can be changed by upsetting the feed back mechanisms that keep it in quasi equilibrium for the current settings. You can just show me what you know that I supposedly do not. I would like all analysis only in words at first. You can show your derivation of the second order or higher partial differential equations later. You must also show how all major driving forces and mitigating feedback mechanisms interact. An attempt to quantify these various factors would get more marks!

I also expect all assumptions to be clearly defined.

Bert

[tlgerdes (Trevor)]

Originally Posted by dpastern

The real crux of this issue is that we simply have far too many humans on this planet to support. The problem is created by over breeding, tampering with longevity, tampering with diseases that are designed by nature to cull the population.

Dave

Well Dave, are you going to volunteer to solve your problem by removing your self from existance? I certainly am not, but could you please elaborate as to who you propose volunteers to solve your problem by no longer existing?

[Moon (James)]

Peter,
Looks like you have opened a can of worms here.
Perhaps we need a poll on this topic to settle it the democratic way???