the hysteria just does not stop

[Ric]

Originally Posted by renormalised

No it doesn't and I agree wholeheartedly. However, it's been something that for most part has fallen on deaf ears because most people either can't give a hoot, don't understand what to do (if anything) or don't want to change because it's all too hard and inconvenient.

Very true indeed, we just have to keep pushing the message, the change will happen and the others will be dragged along with it as well.

Two years ago only a few Australian cities turned out their light for an hour, this year it was half the globe for an hour. Who knows what next year will be like.Maybe lights out all night

An interesting thought is that global warming leads to increased cloud cover, not a good thing for amateur astronomers. It's definitely in our own interests if anything to do something.

Cheers

[tornado33]

The problem is, its like asking the question should we prepare fpr a devastation meteor impact? many say it will not happen in our lifetime so why worry. But then it could. We just dont know. We havent surveyed every Earth crosser that can threaten us.

Going on past climate records re. climate change may not help. You see, never in the history of the Earth has a life form appeared that is capable of burning most of all the hydrocarbons in the Earth.s crust. Thus, the long term result of this is not known.

My person belief is that climate change on a massive scale is being held back by Earths natural thermostats, the oceans, the fact that warmer temps. mean more evaporation hence more cloud which reflects some heat away. However like any thermostat, it has limits and when it "runs out of adjustment" things may get bad real quick.

Ironically Im a person with least to lose with climate change, as I dont have children who must face the consequences of this climate change.

Anyway climate change may be a moot point if worldwide economies collapse because of the ongoing rise in oil prices. How would Australia cope if petrol was $3/litre, what about $5/litre?

When I go to work (on the bus) I see car after car zipping past with only 1 person in them, and many of them are larger cars as well. Fancy needing a shell of 1 or 2 tonnes of metal to move you around, powered by technology developed 100 years ago. Instead there should be electric vechicles weighing no more than 500 kg powered by the latest lithium chemestries, offering 500km+ ranges, 110 kph speed and thousands of charge/discharge cycles, charged either from solar arrays on our houses or using cheap off peak power overnight. Imagine speding only a few dollars a week in travelling expenses.

They talk of Moores Law in computers wheer one day they will stop getting faster and better because the circuits cannot be made any smaller. Well moors law of transport has stopped already, as our cars arent getting any better. They are instead getting heavier and more powerful, not more efficient.

[renormalised (Carl)]

"Moore's Law" on Transport was surpassed decades ago. The internal combustion engine is obsolete technology that's had its day.

[renormalised (Carl)]

Anyway climate change may be a moot point if worldwide economies collapse because of the ongoing rise in oil prices. How would Australia cope if petrol was $3/litre, what about $5/litre?

The price may not hit that high soon, but in the medium term it will, and then what??. I can only say that the oil companies, the people who own and run them, and the pollies that are in their spheres of influence (ie. George Bush and family, Dick Cheney and Co, etc, etc) will do nothing to prevent it. They'll mouth platitudes and try half baked means to placate everyone else, but all you'll see (and it's happening now) is a mad scramble for what little is left of the resource and a mad dash to look for other oil/gas fields wherever they can find them. Meanwhile, they keep getting richer at everyone else's (and the planet's) expense.

[Ric]

I regretfully think of what could have been.

If the governments of the day say 20 years ago and doesn't matter which one as they are all guilty of short sightedness. If they had they forethought and the balls to stand up and invest in solar technology I could only imagine the level of technology that we would be at.

No doubt every house would be on soloar power and feeding the grids thus reducing the need for those big power funnels spewing out all those gases. Instead we choose to make it harder for people to get solar power and put solar power companies out of business thus making sure big businesses still get their massive quarterly profits.

As Scott mentioned how far developed would the electric car have been developed if the government had developed the ideas instead of letting the car companies shelve the prototypes.

The so called crackpots were as right then as the so called crackpots of today are.

Cheers

[acropolite (Phil)]

The sad thing about what's happening now is that it could have been avoided.

We're stuck in an unsustainable lifestyle, global warming or not, things have to change.

IMO there are 3 parties at fault.

The car companies could have acted decades ago to make more fuel efficient cars, but chose not to until the 11th hour.

The oil companies simply waited until demand exceeded supply and are now reaping the rewards.



Finally consider our federal government.

They were fully aware that the time would come when fossil fuels became scarce and that most experts (Will excepted ) agreed that global warming was reality.

They have done little (almost nothing) to encourage development of alternatives and renewables and a lot to assist polluters such as the coal, uranium and forestry industries.

They are still doing the same, having just introduced new legislation, similar to the existing MIS, legislation that allows 100% Tax writeoff for carbon sequestration tree plantations with absolutely no strings attached. A coal company, for example, can buy valuable farmland and plant with trees, write the investment off in the first year then on sell to another company to harvest, the trees don't even have to be left growing.

This Tax avoidance scheme will further increase the damage being already being done to our rural sector by existing MIS schemes. If you're curious as to what effect MIS schemes are having on the rural sector visit the Sustainable Agricultural Communities Australia Website.

When carbon trading comes in to play the heavy polluters will be using Tax dollars, that would otherwise flow in to our taxation coffers, to offset their pollution.

[renormalised (Carl)]

This carbon trading is a complete joke. No matter how much they try and offset pollution by planting trees, they could never plant enough of them to do anything to change the levels, anyway. Takes a tree years to get to the stage that it's efficient enough to absorb large amounts of CO2 and yet they're trying to convince (rather effectively I might add) everyone that it's the greatest idea around and that it'll be one of the magic bullets. Anyway, the greatest carbon sink on the planet isn't the forests, it's the oceans and that's where the vast majority of the CO2 goes.

[Karls48 (Karl)]

I think that biggest misconception of those who believe in Global Warming and those who are sceptical about it is that both sides do not accept the fact that nothing is permanent on this planet or indeed in whole Universe. Weather changes, life forms extinct and other one take their place and even hardest rock will crumble and the sun will stop shining, eventually. Those who cry about lost of biodiversity, about leaving the world as it was for future generations are kidding themselves. Species come and go – those who can adapt will survive and those that cannot will die out. Some other species will arise to take up niche environment left vacant by extinct species. We, the Homo Sapient will not last forever either unless we take active steps to prevent new species of humans from developing (for which we got means but not will).
People who blame current numbers of livestock for Global Warming due to methane production are same people who cry about disappearance of wast herds of wild grazing animals in America, Africa and Asia. What is the difference in the methane gas produced by bison or elephant and a cow? You have to make up your mind – you either accept creation as you starting world view (and then I’m wrong in my arguments) or you accept evolution theories and that have to be your starting point on assessing the world around you.
Blaming governments and different corporations for current state of development of our society is highly hypocritical. You live in democratic society and you and your fellow citizens had very easy option to change course of the policies (you did not have to take up gun and start revolution to change things). But you enjoyed and thrive in what you call now bad and corrupt decisions of past governments. So please shut up about the past you and me are very much part of it.
I accept that our exploitation of oil and coal have a part in current changing weather pattern. However, if it is for our benefit or not remains to be seen. Eventually those resources would come to surface and realise their carbon content to the atmosphere anyhow. So we did it bit earlier then nature would do it

[marki]

Originally Posted by Karls48

Species come and go – those who can adapt will survive and those that cannot will die out. Some other species will arise to take up niche environment left vacant by extinct species. We, the Homo Sapient will not last forever either unless we take active steps to prevent new species of humans from developing (for which we got means but not will). ..... or you accept evolution theories and that have to be your starting point on assessing the world around you.

You have used evolutionary theory as a basis to your argument but have neglected to acknowledge that evolution through the process of natural selection takes millions of years to occur in response to small changes in the environment. Some other species will not just spontaneously evolve to replace those that are lost and although as in all systems there is a certain degree of flexibility to accept and adapt to change, the Earths equalibrium is quite fragile and needs to cared for by those species which have the capacity to understand, reason and make the necessary changes to prevent mass extinction (as opposed to those that cannot control flatulence ). As a science person I am naturally sceptical of wild claims about the loss of biodiversity and the causes and possible effects of global warming but I am certainly not so foolish to accept the loss of our natural world as tough biccies. I do not know what the outcome would be for us or our children if such an event occured but I do know future generations will thrive if it stays as pristine as possible (now I'm being speciest). As for democratic choice in Australia, that would have to be the biggest joke of all!!! We have surrendered our rights to vote for change by allowing the existance of cashed up powerful lobby groups who dictate policy in this country no matter which party happens to be in power at the time.

[casstony]

I reckon we need to give women a shot at running the world. Male dominance has outlived its usefulness. The girls could humor us by letting us kill some things now and then, but we really aren't equipped to run a planet.

[marki]

Originally Posted by casstony

I reckon we need to give women a shot at running the world. Male dominance has outlived its usefulness. The girls could humor us by letting us kill some things now and then, but we really aren't equipped to run a planet.

Take Margret Thatcher for example .

Seriously though, if it means all men are relegated to pointless pursuits such as amature astronomy, I would happily concur .

[casstony]

Originally Posted by marki

Take Margret Thatcher for example .
.

Margret Thatcher is no woman. Doctor Who is real.

[marki]

Originally Posted by casstony

Margret Thatcher is no woman. Doctor Who is real.

Ahhh but have you ever considered that Dr Who could be Margret Thatcher in drag or vice versathey are both british and appear to have multiple personalities .

[Karls48 (Karl)]

Marki, the extinction of dinosaurs and its kind was unlikely produced by slow environmental change taking millions of years. But, yes you are right. For new species to evolve it takes long (by our perception) time. Its not that I don’t give hoot about losing pristine environments that existed in past times. But, realistically what can we do about it. To preach to the people in Africa, Asia or South America who live on $1 a day that they should not develop their resources and leave they countries pristine is a big hypocrisy. After we plunder any available natural resources all over the globe for past coupe thousand years and build our wealth, we got no right to demand anything regarding environment from developing countries. Regardless of that, they will not listen to us anyhow.
Any measure that will lower our standard of living will produce outcry of protests and will lead to the fall of government of that time. And you cannot change our impact on environment without lowering living standards.
Short of some natural catastrophe that will wipe out 90% of human population things will only get worse.
“We have surrendered our rights to vote for change by allowing the existance of cashed up powerful lobby groups who dictate policy in this country no matter which party happens to be in power at the time.”
Yes this is true. But no one held the gun to our head to accept it. We did it because those making big profits let some crumbs of their wealth fall our way. That is the cleverness of democratic societies. Chances of revolution in most of developed, well to do countries, is at present time virtually zero. And revolution is the only way how you can change the system.
Just spare though for people living in those non-democratic countries. Same as here the rich run the country, but there are very few crumbs of the wealth that is allowed to fall down to the general population.

[marki]

Originally Posted by Karls48

To preach to the people in Africa, Asia or South America who live on $1 a day that they should not develop their resources and leave they countries pristine is a big hypocrisy.

Any measure that will lower our standard of living will produce outcry of protests and will lead to the fall of government of that time. And you cannot change our impact on environment without lowering living standards.

But no one held the gun to our head to accept it. We did it because those making big profits let some crumbs of their wealth fall our way. That is the cleverness of democratic societies.

I agree that it would be difficult to change the mind set of third world leaders, especially when you consider their hardships as they look at us consuming so much of the planets resources. However as an eternal optimist I must ask myself why you would make the same mistake again? Surely the undeveloped world is an ideal opportunity to do things differently and developed nations have a vested interest in making sure this happens. Why build smog polluting power stations when you could use alternate methods. I mean access to the sun is hardly a problem in Africa. Research into eco friendly chemistry (green chemistry) is moving forward in leaps and bounds and could actually end up cheaper for a large number of processes as the solvents can be reused where they are often lost in traditional methods. Sure we will keep pulling resources out of the ground but we could use these more efficiently then we do now considering the waste we generate. Working smarter has got to benefit all of us, we really have just been too lazy to change.

I saw a program on TV a couple of months ago that compared resource use between the USA and Europe. The europenes used less than half of what Americans use when population Vs consumption is compared yet the standard of living is not drastically different, in the west anyway which is where the comparison was made. I really admire what is happening in Germany with individual townships providing their own power through renewable sources and being able to sell the excess back into the grid. Yes the govt has rigged it but so it should as the less dependence we have on oil and coal the better and it may even force the republican party to find something else to do besides start wars everytime it gets into office. The people producing the electricity have not only gained a cheaper energy source but also a sense of independence that they did not have before.

As for democratic society "viva la revolution"

[cahullian]

It's amazing to think that 100 years ago there were more electric cars on the road than combustion engine. The technology is and always has been there. The problem with modern society is everyone wants more,more,more. More money, more things e.g telescopes eye pieces (how many members here in this forum have several scopes and dozens of eye pieces and more than one car and more than one house and more than a couple of pairs of shoes and more than one bank account and more than one job and,and ,and.... we are all guilty of wanting more) Who has more than one tv in the house? The list is endless. The planet could house 6 billion or more people but not 6 billion greedy people not even 500 million greedy people and there's a lot more than 500 million greedy people out there. The stock market is not a good thing as all the businesses there need to make more money every year for their share holders so do the planet a favour and sell everything you own and go live in a cave for the next 50 years and all will be well with the world. We humans are quick to adapt to change and we may survive global warming in less numbers but that may not be a bad thing as there will be lots more stuff for those that are left to have and we can start the buying cycle all over again.

Gazz

[ving (David)]

ahh cool!... i mean hot, the threads not closed yet and i get to reply!

global warming is a fact (and a natural patern). only such an egotistical species as our own could posibly think we can control nature. I mean we are powerful and invincible arent we? I think that in our infinte natural patern reversing powerful (egotistical) intellegence we should just build another ozone layer... or no! a forcefield that blocks any unwanted UV light,stabilises the atmosphere (for us astro geeks), and gives a warm sunny 25 degrees all year round....

BAH! stoopid humans!

global warming? may car has been completely covered in ice every morning for the past week... at least. i live in sydney!
global warming? the summer previous to last we bought a little 3' deep wading pool to escape the heat at home cause it was blistering! last summer we didnt bother putting it up as it just didnt get anywhere near as hot... shouldnt it have been warmer?
global warming? Bah!

bring onthe ice age i say!

[ving (David)]

but wait theres more...

maybe what we should be paying attention to is air quality and water quality... clean air is hard to find...

[jjjnettie (Jeanette)]

Originally Posted by tornado33

How would Australia cope if petrol was $3/litre, what about $5/litre?

They'll keep on paying for it.
We're addicted to our cars and I can't see many people wanting to give them up. Especially those who live out in the sticks and need our own transport.

We need an alternate fuel source NOW.

[fringe_dweller]

the opposing powerful forces at play in this debate are very interesting, self preservation should always win out?

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599...11-401,00.html

'Prosecute climate change liars - NASA expert
By staff writers and wires
June 24, 2008 03:45pm

NASA expert wants climate change liars tried
Says fossil fuel companies blocking improvements
Warns world leaders only have two years to act
THE heads of major fossil fuel companies who spread disinformation about global warming should be "tried for high crimes against humanity and nature," according to a leading climate scientist.

Dr James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, sounded the alarm about global warming in testimony before a US Senate subcommittee exactly 20 years ago, Fox News reported.

He returned to the US capital yesterday to speak to US lawmakers about what he believes is a global warming "emergency" .

"Special interests have blocked the transition to our renewable energy future," Dr Hansen wrote in an opinion piece posted on the WorldWatch Institute website to coincide with his visit to Washington.

"Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil fuel companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, just as tobacco companies discredited the link between smoking and cancer. Methods are sophisticated, including funding to help shape school textbook discussions of global warming."

Do you think companies should be prosecuted? Tell us below

Dr Hansen said fossil energy companies were aware of the negative, long-term consequences of their business.

"In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature," he wrote.

Dr Hansen said urgent action was needed to cut carbon dioxide emissions that are warming the globe and are already causing arctic ice to melt.

He said world leaders had only one or two years to act before the Earth reaches a "tipping point" with major consequences to the global climate and species survival.

"We have reached an emergency situation," Dr Hansen said.

He said the US Government should not keep the proceeds from any carbon tax they may levy, but refund the money to taxpayers to help them pay for more fuel efficient technology.

The CSIRO yesterday released a report saying Australia's proposed carbon tax was nothing to fear as incomes would rise more quickly than energy prices.

- with Reuters'

but then imposing onerous obstacles to economic development is also a crime against humanity? shouldnt that be a crime against the planet? or god or garden of eden? if so inclined