Hi Glen as I have said many times one should not ask a question if one does not know the answer...Same applies to a statement of “fact” and expected responses
.
Sorry I saw the opportunity to make a point that what one is presented with via the TV is not necessarily a fact
. And that goes for the net as well
. Before I posted the reference to volcanoes being responsible for 100 times the carbon output I searched the net… It was rather obvious that the statements made about volcanoes could be supported or bunked according to the particular view of the authors
. All that I could conclude was you could find support for either proposition finding the science was another matter. And that is the message here is we should all be careful of what we take on board as a fact.
The link you provided Glen offers the contrary view to volcanoes being responsible however I feel even that link leans a certain way
. The link says the output is “not determinable” (if it is not determinable how can we rely upon it?) yet from there to say such an estimate is “conservative” makes me question if a conclusion stated as being undetermined can then be used to provide a point from which relationships can be drawn. Does saying the estimate is conservative entitle any relationships to be drawn is my point.. It seems to me the “facts” are determined by who may be grinding the axe.
Without trying to prove the right or wrong of the proposition presented in that particular link I simply ask…Why would someone purporting to offer a scientific finding say…” Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from subaerial and submarine volcanoes
are uncertain at the present time” immediately after an introduction “Reaching a good estimate is important in
guiding global policy for standards to reduce emissions from man-made sources of gases”...then conclude on such uncertainty “Man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150 times”. If one is going to use an observation as a fact maybe a “good estimate” should be more than a “good estimate” and things that are uncertain at this present time be established as somewhat certain, and not use an uncertainty further in the argument. I don’t think it is good science to approach science with leaps in logic.
If volcanoes are or are not going to get the blame perhaps we need a conclusive finding not one that is stated as conservative ..conservative says little of the real position I would think, as to me its says we don’t really know but it looks as if this is the case.
I have had a bit of a laugh with most stuff on the issue of GW
.
When one finds something like this in a objective report..
(within one of the links you mentioned)
http://news.independent.co.uk/enviro...cle2326210.ece)
“Yet more recently, his main ally against the Kyoto Protocol, the Australian Prime Minister John Howard, has been forced into a U-turn by a massive Australian drought and an approaching election, announcing a ban on energy-wasting incandescent light bulbs”.
One may stop and think could this reporter be grinding an axe
. One will be better armed to question motives and intentions of the author when finding jumps in emotion of this nature.
Now as I said a lengthy search of materials available on the net told me that one can find most well anything to support or to bunk whatever one wishes, however one should be always ready to question “the facts”.
The fact that I think is undeniable is that the science is hard to find because of the politics
.
The watering down as you referred to Glen says it all in that department
.
Politics is a simple way of throwing a blanket over the vested interests who are offering “facts” ..and there are vested interests all through the debate. I simply say believe little of the “promoted science” and look to who is managing the “facts”.
Oil companies, nuclear power promoters, solar panel manufactures and even worm farm promoters, to mention just a few, can be very selective on what science they will use to promote their interests
.
The answer to your question as to “why are fuel prices going up?” is somewhat simple
.
Oil for all practical purpose has a monopoly on energy and those who control it take advantage of that situation. Add to that Governments preparedness to tax it at an obscene and excessive rate and profit by any hike in its price and we have a setting for the price of fuel to ever increase
. Our Government takes advantage to the detriment of the consumer and does nothing to change the situation
. They stand to make more money as the price goes up which is hardly going to work in the consummers interest.
Even now more monopolies are being built in the petrol industry via the control being extended by the “food” chains over supply and pricing of petrol. The oil companies may get a big pay off out of oil but I suspect they are only but one of the players in the game
. How much does the Australian Government and the respective State Governments “earn” from petrol.??
Calin
..if I may call you Paul
.. Paul you provide a reasonable and sound view and there is little one could disagree upon
. Change is the driver of evolution, change is the driver of economies, and change is good as it requires innovation to manage
.
The only thing that gets me going about all this is the way folk like Mr Gore points out the problem and yet does little (or nothing) in changing his consumption to set an example and simply opens the door for all selling a solution..be they nuclear power folk or solar panel folk
.
Also the preparedness of most to cry the sky is falling and seek short term band aids when the problem really comes down to the fact that some consume much yet expect others to pay the price
.
It seems to me that human activity is speeding up what is probably a natural climate change
. The most reasonable scientific view I lean to is that we need to slow the process of pumping more crap into our atmosphere but prepare for a hotter planet where things will be different
.
It seems that we are in for a climate change and that we as a species are probably hastening the process
.
Will the change happen tomorrow or next century I don’t know but what I do know is there is much un necessary pollution of our planet that we should manage better irrespective of its long term implications. We could be cleaner and more responsible as a species. But if we are causing or adding to the change lets review our wasteful ways before we figure systems to continue current presumably unsustainable consumption.
Alex
. 
