Climate change

[PeterM]

Ok, Man made Climate Change wins the day. Seems there is little time left, even less than this time last year when virtually the same posts cropped up, thank goodness I/we have done er, um, er....
Seems without a degree you are not to enter the debate... Yet I do not see one post that would make me think geez action is or has been taken to do something about alleged issue. Sorry, there maybe many degreees hanging on walls gathering dust, but actions will convince me of sincerity and concern, if indeed there is a problem.
There is going to be a huge cost to all of this. When it actually has to be paid watch all the supporters run the mob that brings it in out of town. It's just like talking to 100 people who voted a mob in, within months most say "I didn't vote them in".
PeterM.

[marki]

My this has got everyones attention hasn't it. If scientist on either side of the fence are fraudulant in their predictions and data they will soon be exposed as there are no other critics on Earth as cruel and to the point as the scientific community. You cannot deal in any other currency but hard data sets that back your argument. Thats how science works. There are far more important and pressing reasons to stop burning fossil fuels other than global warming. They are the major source of many chemicals that cannot be replaced easily by other means if at all. Me, I have cut down my bean intake to minimise my CH4 output .

Mark

[Glenhuon (Bill)]

The argument that "There have been climate changes before" does'nt hold a lot of water in our present scenario. Sure, there have been, but the major shifts took out a lot of competing species, witness the fossil record, and allowed mammals to flourish. The only reason we are here is because the climate during this period has been condusive to our development. Those shifts in our historical record have been minor and short lived.
Will the next change be so kind ? Probably not. We are adaptable, but can the planet adapt to 7.5 billion (9.5 billion at the going increase rate in about 30 years) of us, I think not to our advantage. Past time we cleaned up our act and started (perhaps thats returned) to living WITH the planet instead of trying to control and exploit it. We are only top of the heap now because of circumstances, this can change in very short order.

No, I do not advocate going back to living in caves and huts and growing vegies. Just to take what we have and use it with a bit more regard to the only world we inherited.

Bill

[Robh (Rob)]

Originally Posted by marki

My this has got everyones attention hasn't it. If scientist on either side of the fence are fraudulant in their predictions and data they will soon be exposed as there are no other critics on Earth as cruel and to the point as the scientific community. You cannot deal in any other currency but hard data sets that back your argument. Thats how science works. There are far more important and pressing reasons to stop burning fossil fuels other than global warming. They are the major source of many chemicals that cannot be replaced easily by other means if at all. Me, I have cut down my bean intake to minimise my CH4 output .

Mark

Mark,

I agree totally. The scientific community is merciless on the fraudulent.
As for the beans ...

Regards, Rob

[tornado33]

man faces some big difficulties in the future. The technology to give us alternatives to burning hydrocarbons for energy just arent producing. For example, photovoltaic cells are little better today then decades ago. The quantum efficiency is still woeful ,<20% isnt it? and they are still expensive to make.
Wind power isnt 100% reliable, and wind farms costly to build and the noise causes problems if people live nearby.
We seem no closer to fusion power now, than the 1970's
Nuclear power costs twice as much as coal, asking everyone to pay 100% more for their electricity is untenable.
Our cities lack a proper integrated public transport system, and the cities themselves poorly designed for mass rapid transit. Remember the Multifunction Polis. It never got off the ground.

Finally, we may have to consider technology may not be open ended. With a finite number of usable elements, and thus a finite number of chemical compounds that can be made from them, we may hit a wall where no great new inventions may be made, kinda like when silicon chip circuitry cannot be made any smaller. This is talked about in the book The Life and Death of Planet Earth, it used an example of the bicycle will not be ridden much faster than it is now, and there may be no great technological breakthroughs that will help us through the future. The book is a very good read. Also, note the name of one of the authors. Coincidently the same name as who started the thread

My own opinion of climate change is, well Earth has never had a species intent on burning up a sizable portion of the planets hydrocarbons before. Also, despite the Sun being in one of the deepest solar minimums in modern times and the corresponding drop in irradiance, we had the 2009 southeastern Australia heat wave, record temps and the resulting worst bushfire deathtoll in Australias recorded history. Yep, we are to blame.

[TrevorW]

Eat less meat

[strongmanmike (Michael)]

I'm with Peter Ward and Bert (smart men)

My wife is private secretary to the honorable Greg Combet MP ..... along with part of the defence portfolio he is also the new minister asissting the minister for climate change the Hon Penny Wong MP, boy does Greg have his work cut out for him in his new ministerial portfolio

My wife is suddenly working like a dog (a beautiful dog mind you )

Mike

[dpastern (Dave Pastern)]

Originally Posted by tlgerdes

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?

We have too many humans, from too long an interference. In the 20th century alone, we went from an average lifespan of high 40s/low 50s (early 20th century) to well into the 80s. Medicines, increased sanitation, larger food stores have all accounted for this increase in longevity. And now we have foolish scientists hunting for the aging gene so they can stop it! WTF!!! As a collective species, we have to stop tampering with nature. It's not an individual problem, and culling individuals here and there won't solve it. We need to simply start thinking before we act. Do we need a Cancer antivenin? No. Do we really need Flu vaccines? No. As nature intended, the stronger will survive, and the weaker will die. The stronger result in a tougher gene pool (albeit smaller). This is how evolution works, albeit over a very long period of time.

As to myself, since I have strong beliefs in this area, I fully intend not to partake of things like chemo etc when it comes to cancer. Research is showing that Cancer is becoming more and more predominant over time, affecting a higher percentage of the population. I don't really want to die, no living thing wants to, it's a natural survival instinct to try and live as long as possible. Humans have taken this far and beyond this though, more so than any other species in the history of this planet. And that's what's worrying. Furthermore, we are currently decimating vast degrees of other species that share this planet with us. Where are their rights to this planet, or don't they get any? Do humans automatically have the right to veto every other species on the planet? Our technology allows us to survive where we shouldn't, and it also allows us to expand in areas that in reality, we weren't meant to inhabit.

You can make snide remarks if you want, but in the end, I suspect history will prove me right.

Dave

[tornado33]

I do my bit to keep a small carbon footprint. I use public transport, (buses) to get to work, and keep electricity use to a minimum at home. my pc box, despite being a quadcore 2.6 ghz with 8 gb ram, uses no more than 90 watts (including the standby UPS), The Asus board has power saving features, lowering the voltage to the cpu and chipset when not under load, the 22inch lcd running on "economy" mode around 30 watts. When asleep I turn it off at the UPS minimizing standby usage. Ive also put in a powerboard with a switch for our 106 cm telly, so we can turn it off at the wall to again save standby power usage.

Um, regarding the survival of the fittest in an above post , easy to say but would you be happy to see a family member, or your child condemmed to death when they could be saved with medical intervention. The problem of overpopulation is easily solved with encouragement for 1 child families. Axe the baby bonus and child welfare payments for only 1 child, have more babies and no xtra government money.

[avandonk]

Hold on Mike we both cannot be smart. PW still thinks the only optic is an RC!
Bert

[Marclau (Marcel)]

Originally Posted by 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....

Ummmm very interesting but I am very suspicious on any documentation from government findings.
The current issue of Unsensored Magazine has confirmed that last year, some 32,000 scientists and another 7,000 doctors, climantologists etc signed a paper for the world governments to come cleans (no pun intended) on Global warming and Co2 pollutions and its real effects on the planet.

According to many, an dI have contacts and friends who are professionals in this field, global warming is a normal occurance. In fact, over the past 30 years, tempatures have actually dropped approx 1.1 degree and not warmed like everyone is saying............

I have spent the past 30 years personally investigating suppression of factual science advancements and this includes medically, environmentally and technological.

A document signed back in 1980 with Jimmy Carter and Cyrus Vance signed a report titled The Global 2000 report. Do a search as it makes incredible reading.......a lot of whats in the report is actually happening for the past 20 years...........I wont spoil it too much as this could be for another website altogether............

[Archy (George)]

Originally Posted by 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....

When a paper like the Washington Post publishes a story like this, its time to wonder what is the agenda of its proprietor.

There are two sides to the human induced climate change debate: the side of those who believe the credulous or Creds for short, and the skeptics. The root of the word skeptic is think, not scoff. I am a skeptic.

[Jen]

Originally Posted by tlgerdes

If man is responsible for todays climate change, what has caused the climate change for the last 4 billion years? and why are those causes not at work today?

yep my thoughts too

[cruiser (Brett)]

Ah well, I guess the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Time of course will always prove one side right. It might take more than one lifetime to find that out though.

On either side of the arguement we should look after this world and try to keep it healthy for generations to come.

On a lighter note, if global warming does take hold, Mikes going to have a quite few beanies left that he cant get rid of.

[avandonk]

So 32,000 'scientists' are deniers. They mostly are barely published anywhere apart from their own publications.

Give me a couple of dozen of their names and I will show you they do not have any credibility anywhere!


Sorry.

Bert

[Glenhuon (Bill)]

If man is responsible for todays climate change, what has caused the climate change for the last 4 billion years? and why are those causes not at work today?

They are at work, as they have always been, but we are making it happen faster. Adapting to a change in environment takes a long time, the fittest survive and the weakest die out, as the balance changes. The question is, can the human race adapt fast enough. With our reliance on our present day technology and head in the sand attitude, probably not.

Bill

[ngcles]

Hi All,

Gee what a vigorous discussion -- seem the "time for debate" is not quite over yet!

I respect the views of all who are involved -- we are all entitled to an opinion and to critique others. No problem with that. I will respect your view even if you don't respect mine. But I have to ask, of those who have been critical of Ian Plimer's book, have you actually read the book for yourself, or are you only simply repeating the criticisms of others?

Not for a moment do I suggest the book (I've read about 200 pages and am still going) is flawless, but Ian makes a very good case for their being a vast number factors that have an effect on climate and that it would be wrong to nail it all on CO2 based on what has happened in just the last 4-odd decades.

So, have you actually read it for yourselves or is your critique based on what others have said?

What I'd like to know (if you feel qualified to answer -- please do so) then in terms of climate in the last 1000-odd years, what caused the Medieval warming when global temps were several degrees higher than today and CO2 somewhat lower? What caused the little Ice Age in the 16th and 17th century when temps were lower than today but CO2 emissions by humans were higher than during Medieval times?

I've also read that 97% of the emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere are from natural causes -- about 3% are from Humans. Is this true? Where can I read the actual evidence on this either way?

In the long term, I read that during geologic time, Ice has covered the poles only about 20% of the time -- ie 80% of the time Earth has not had significant ice at the poles. Are we living in an abnormally cold period? If so what are the implications from this?

At this stage I'm inclined to the view that the causes of climate change are dependent on a very large number of factors, many or most of these are out of our control entirely. Is it right just to pin the blame on one trace-gas in our atmosphere?

Bert wrote:

"Give me a couple of dozen of their names and I will show you they do not have any credibility anywhere!"

So what about the other 31,976?

Would you lump Dr David Evans in with this lot? He is a well credentialed scientist who was a leading government advisor on "global warming" and a vigorous anthropogenic global warming advocate who has now changed his mind:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...6-7583,00.html

and

http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/a...aspx?id=616122

Is he a crackpot? If so, on what basis?

Bert wrote (of the 32,000): "They mostly are barely published anywhere apart from their own publications."

So of the 2,500 "scientists" in the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report that is so heavily relied upon to make the case for anthropogenic climate change, you can assure me they are all, without exception, credible and well credentialed individuals whose opinions cannot reasonably be questioned? They are all "scientists"? How many are actually climatologists? None of them have political affiliations? None of them have an interest to protect? They are all the leading people from their fields?

Don't get me wrong, on both sides of the fence there a people with an interest to protect but does one group have the moral high-ground over the other?

Can we pretend to predict climate in the next 100 years when we have so little hard evidence about what has caused climatic change over the last 300 million years?

I'm all ears and ready to learn!


Best,

Les D

[dpastern (Dave Pastern)]

I find it amazing that a few scientists disbelieve that man has had an effect on our environment (and a negative one at that), yet 99% believe, given the scientific facts at hand, that we are responsible. And people flock to the vast minority. It'll be interesting in 100 years time when we've scewed up the planet so badly that it's irreversible. We'll still probably have people saying it's not our fault ;-)

Man is not a responsible species. We breed without thought, we consume natural resources, and we indiscriminately destroy other species so that we can continue to expand. Hell, we're having several nations consider mining the North Pole so that they can get some more precious oil! We just don't learn.

This "it can't be us" approach, or "let's wait and see" is what continuously gets us into trouble. We don't learn, and we keep making the same mistakes, only realising them after the event when it's too late.

Dave

[iceman (Mike)]

Interesting debate, and I'm happy to leave it open to run for longer, so long as:

1) You think before you post
2) You re-read your post before you press submit
3) You make sure post does not personally attack anyone
4) You are not repeating yourself over and over

Problem with threads like this, is that people are so polarised either way, they a) don't read what anyone else posts (or any links to other research either way), and b) they start posting their "opinion" over and over again (maybe with a few words changed here and there).

For my own opinion, I haven't done any significant research or reading into either side of the argument. But from what I've read, and what makes sense to me:

a) Humans are changing our environment. No doubt about it. Is that responsible for global warming? I don't know.
b) Should we be more responsible in our environment? Absolutely!
c) Do both sides have hidden agendas and A LOT of money at stake? I would presume so.
d) If we don't know for sure what caused the global warming/cooling from previous earth history, how can we be sure that our activity is causing this climate change? Previous global warming and cooling effects didn't have a CO2 correlation.
e) I do fear that there is a risk of shutting down opposing points of view just because it's not the popular opinion. Like the doctor in the 1800's who made a link between women dying during/after childbirth, with lack of hygiene and doctors not washing their hands or their instruments between patients. It was ridiculed because it made those other doctors look bad. It was another 50 years of women dying before it was taken seriously.

[tlgerdes (Trevor)]

I believe Mike S is right in his statements on the enviroment and how we should live with it.

I think the hysteria around on the casue of global warnming come with the interpretation and factuation of statistics. These can be made to say anything if you only choose to look at certain correlations.

Take this scenario

The people dying on our roads have dropped significantly over the last 30 years. The power of car engines and the speeds these cars can reach have almost double in that time frame. Following the CO2 model of correlation QED make cars with 500kw plus engines that can all do 300km/h and our road death toll could be 0 in 10 years.

We know this will not happen because as intelligent people we understand the other forces that go into the equation.

We understand roadsafety, car design, attitude, skill, training, etc all play a part in the outcome, and this is less complex than our environment and climate, so why is only ONE factor being blamed for the change?