Climate Change Poll

[isuzurover]

OK, since there have been a few threads on this issue - what do you think/believe?

[trobbo]

water is wet, the sky is blue and women have secrets.

[WhiteD3]

Another interesting poll which I'm sure will cause great debate.

Does it really matter if some or all of global warming is down to us? If you accept that global warming is a fact or even a possibility, why not use it as an excuse to improve our technology, quality of life and environment to go down the road of cleaner energy sources and sustainability?

To me its a no brainer:angel:

[mike 90 RR]

I won't comment, Ben ... cause the last thread hit the SoapBox real fast ... :eek:

[Lionel]

Another interesting poll which I'm sure will cause great debate.

Does it really matter if some or all of global warming is down to us? If you accept that global warming is a fact or even a possibility, why not use it as an excuse to improve our technology, quality of life and environment to go down the road of cleaner energy sources and sustainability?

To me its a no brainer:angel:

I actually think we are only part of the story, but it seems sensible to take steps to minimise the amount to which we are adding to it!

The biggest factor is global overpopulation, but I have no idea how we can deal with that. We are going to run out of oil eventually, so we need to be looking seriously at transport fuel alternatives, and even more urgently for cleaner power generation.

Cheers,

Lionel

[disco2hse]

Didn't vote because I am not convinced that there is Global Warming, but I am certain that humans have a small role to play in global climate variation. Local maybe but not global.

I remember the dire warnings we used to get in the 70's about the next ice age that was overdue.

So, to quote Chicken Little: "The sky is falling, the sky is falling!!!" :rolleyes:

Alan

PS Anyway, how stupid is it to label carbon dioxide as a pollutant. I mean, really...

PPS I, like most right thinking individuals, do not like industrial grade pollution.

PPPS Much of the debate has little to do with saving earth but a lot to do with redistribution of wealth to supposedly emerging economies and arguments about how to lower human populations to manageable levels (read that as Marxist doctrine, and Pol Pot had his methods to). Hence the Emissions Tax Scam.

[biggin]

Climate, as with every thing else in the universe, is constantly changing. There is one thing I can be 100% sure of, and that is, the world is either getting hotter or colder. We are either heading toward another ice age or away from one. Nothing anyone does can change that!
You need another option in your poll - "The climate is always changing and there's nothing any politician can do about it".
This doesn't mean they shouldn't tidy the place up a bit though:D.

[disco2hse]

Climate, as with every thing else in the universe, is constantly changing. There is one thing I can be 100% sure of, and that is, the world is either getting hotter or colder. We are either heading toward another ice age or away from one. Nothing anyone does can change that!
You need another option in your poll - "The climate is always changing and there's nothing any politician can do about it".
This doesn't mean they shouldn't tidy the place up a bit though:D.

Ayup ;)

[strangy]

Oh well, might as well be part of someones emotional crisis today so here goes.

I dont think any of the terms being bandied are an accurate depiction of our envirnment, but rather a political spin, deliberately contrived to manipulate a political and financial outcome for the power brokers of the world.

Long before any effects of "Climate", this planet will cease to sustain life regardless of anyones poitical, climatolagical or conspiracy theory persuasions. As the human race consumes resources at rate that cannot be sustained, we also are reducing areas that sustain life. i.e forrests, farming land, etc.

I liken it to children, when they are little we can manage food and budget etc. with a little to spare sometimes. When they are teenagers they consume evrey edible thing, destroy carpets and clothes and shoes at a rate that outstrips income. It is only when they move out, that we have a chance of recovery.

There was time when a family might put 2 cars over an entire lifetime on the tip. Now a family will puchase a car every 3 to 5 years and be responsible for 8 to 10 cars, dozens of fridges, microwaves, steros, phones etc all ending up in the tip.

"Pollution" did not have the headline grabbing effect so they came up with "Environmental" concerens which didnt grab the headlines after a while either so out comes "Global Warming", which inspired many speeches and panic, which is now not a suitable term either, so we now have "Climate Change."

This planets "climate" may well be changing, but unless the entire planet stops breeding AND obscene profits and exploitation come before social responsibilty, the results are inevitable.

Each year our poulation growth is exponential and grandiose speeches calling for reductions in this and that wont even keep up with global population growth, as each generation expects and demands more consumer products.

I'm not losing sleep about things that I cannot change. I have always been mindful of the resources I use and the land around me.
This used to be common sense to people who couldnt run down to the shop at 2 am for an ice cream and coke.

"Environmentally friendly", "Low Impact" "Carbon Footprint" are all lovely terms which ultimately are meaningless, because they are simply words tossed around to achieve a politcal goal rather than describe something of substance.
I have no doubt that politicians are not serious, the instant they use these words in sentences combined with tax, levy, offset credit etc. and want to apply a penalty to me, the consumer, with no choice other than to buy the apparently high carbon output vehicle, toaster or toothbrush.

Dont lose sleep over it , no one gets out of this world alive anyway:angel:

[numpty]

I actually think we are only part of the story, but it seems sensible to take steps to minimise the amount to which we are adding to it!

The biggest factor is global overpopulation, but I have no idea how we can deal with that. We are going to run out of oil eventually, so we need to be looking seriously at transport fuel alternatives, and even more urgently for cleaner power generation.

Cheers,

Lionel

Well if that's not human induced, what is? ;)

I took the question to mean not that we are the sole cause, but are a contributor.

It is beholden on us to do everything we can to provide a suitable place for the upcoming generations. Surely the amount of gunk we have pumped into the atmosphere over the centuries has to have an adverse effect on our environment. And if we can do something to reduce this, we should.

[trobbo]

The climate is changing, and it would have changed regardless of our inhabitance on the earth. The rate of change may occur slightly faster than had we not been here, but regardless of what we do the end result is the same

[WhiteD3]

Dont lose sleep over it , no one gets out of this world alive anyway:angel:

Obviously you haven't been following the evolution v creationism threads!:D

[jazzaD1]

Obviously you haven't been following the evolution v creationism threads!:D
yeah, they got out of control pretty quick eh? and the religion one has taken off also, makes me think about when i used to be a member of the old holden car club, one of the first things said to me was, "we dont discuss politics or religion, it always ends in a ****fight, other than that, talk about anything you want"

that was pretty much their one and only rule

i havent read the entire threads because its a bit repetitive but maybe the mods should introduce some guidelines to that effect

PS. i am probably gonna cop a bit of flack from this post haha

[jplambs]

Another interesting poll which I'm sure will cause great debate.

Does it really matter if some or all of global warming is down to us? If you accept that global warming is a fact or even a possibility, why not use it as an excuse to improve our technology, quality of life and environment to go down the road of cleaner energy sources and sustainability?

To me its a no brainer:angel:

I don't think we would agree on much WhiteD3, but I think you have nailed it with this one. I just wish we could include an exemption so LR could make engines that were easy for the home mechanic to tinker with. ;)

[WhiteD3]

I don't think we would agree on much WhiteD3, but I think you have nailed it with this one. I just wish we could include an exemption so LR could make engines that were easy for the home mechanic to tinker with. ;)

I'm waiting on the D6 hydrogen fuel cell model...........:angel:

[waynep]

I don't think the "charts and graphs at 20 paces" approach between the two sides is doing any good at all. It is not difficult to come up with evidence to support a view that is already decided.

No, I see this as essentially a struggle between two fundamental aspects of the human phsyce - pragmatism and dogmatism.

A pragmatist's approach is to mimimise risks, compromise, willing to bear some pain for the common good. They would probably be careful with money and not take big risks. These people rely on the weight of eveidence from other like minded people to guide them.

A dogmatist's approach is to stick firmly to the belief that people have the right to do whatever they want, whenever they want. Any attempt to restrict that freedom is a threat to be challenged, and they actively seek evidence to counter it . They would be more of risk takers, live for today etc etc.

You see these two phsyces at play in many debates today, environment, gun laws etc, and this climate change one brings it out even more.

[strangy]

Obviously you haven't been following the evolution v creationism threads!:D

Ah.... yes.
Well, Im going to....
evolve into an old man,
become Carbon Neutral
be reincarnated as fertiliser
while my soul leaves for eternity.


cheers

:wasntme:

[twitchy]

water is wet, the sky is blue and women have secrets.
Bruce willis- the last boy scout!!!!!!!!!


I cant believe people think it isn't getting warmer................... That is proven beyond a doubt, however I am still to see Wether or not it is us.

[Fusion]

All the nuclear bomb testing over the years wouldn't of helped any .

Mostly i think it's a cycle happening . But what we are doing to the world is helping speed that process along .

On the over population thingy ...... For Australia at least ........ STOP PAYING PEOPLE TO HAVE BABIES ! $5000 per baby ! what a waste of money . well good for the electrical stores selling TV's anyways :mad:

[Captain_Rightfoot]

Another interesting poll which I'm sure will cause great debate.

Does it really matter if some or all of global warming is down to us? If you accept that global warming is a fact or even a possibility, why not use it as an excuse to improve our technology, quality of life and environment to go down the road of cleaner energy sources and sustainability?

To me its a no brainer:angel:

That's exactly the way I think of it! :)

[Captain_Rightfoot]

Did anyone see some climate change people have been caught fiddling the books (http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/11/hackers-prove-global-warming-is-scam.html) to support their case? :eek:

[Hymie]

I'm a modern social Leper, yes that's right, I'm a climate change denier.

[isuzurover]

Another interesting poll which I'm sure will cause great debate.

Does it really matter if some or all of global warming is down to us? If you accept that global warming is a fact or even a possibility, why not use it as an excuse to improve our technology, quality of life and environment to go down the road of cleaner energy sources and sustainability?

To me its a no brainer:angel:

Well said. I don't know if anyone caught the WA farmer being interviewed yesterday arvo on JJJ about climate change and the ETS. His take on it was along the lines of - "what do we do in the future if Barnaby (Joyce) is wrong?, by the time we find out it will be too late either way".

[frantic]

Yes we are responsible for most of the climate change and where I work is a heavy contributor! But No person on this forum can say they could/ are living without what we make!
The problem is if we "tax out" all the worst industries they will just move to china where they produce much much more carbon to make the same product!
I work in the steel industry and we use at or under 500kg of coal per ton of steel to slab stage so we use about 2.5 MILLION ton's a year. Japan is slightly better at 495( best in world cause of location costs as everything is imported) but China are basically enviro vandals using around 650kg coal / ton of steel or 30% more ! :mad:
Now the entire steel industry in Australia makes about 8-9 million tonnes ( port K makes 5.5 on its own) but we are dwarfed by the chinese who make over 250 million ton's of steel per year! So to shut us down would destroy 2 cities and cause mass unemployment causing an actual enviromental LOSS! But to china all we are is a 3.5% increase in production.
Across the harbour they had a bad year and "only exported" about 12 million ton's of coal as compared to the previous where they sent 15 mill O/S. That is a pitance compared to what newcastle and Qld are sending out!
To get to my final point think about this. In the steel industry ALONE ( without transport and all the other fuel burning costs such as power for futher steel processing) we are burning each year over 350-400million tons of coal more than 1/2 of which is in the "developing world" with little or no emission controls (remember chinese olypmics where they banned 1/2 the cars and SHUT DOWN local steel mills yet still had to use comp. enhacement for the fireworks because the smog was to thick to see!)and people still sit there and deny global warming?:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:

[slug_burner]

graphs or no graphs the worlds glaciers are retreating, is it global warming or less snow fall? either way it is due to climate change. Are we responsible for it? hmm.

The greenhouse effect and CO2 I beive to have been proven. There is no doubt that we are using more energy now than ever before and a lot of it is being released by the burning of fossil fules. If you accept that to be the case then climate change resulting from man made activities fits the hypothesis that man is responsible for climate change.

Tax or inversly the government granting money to its's citizens or certain sectors of inductry appear to be one of the few ways that government can change peoples behaviour. We are an economy that has come through the GFC so far, some claim it was due to government granting money to its's citizens to spend and keep the flywheel of the economy turning. I for one hold out very little hope that we will get any changes to our behaviour unless there is something in it for us or unless a calamity is evident.

China manged to get rid of flies so they can pretty much do anything if they put their minds to it. Unfortunately the genie of consumerism is out of the bottle in China and the only thing that is going to stop their demand for energy now is going to be another revolution. I don't expect that anything we do will effect how much greenhouse gasess they push into our atmosphere.

Should we sit by and do nothing? Fiddle while Rome burns comes to mind! I like others think that we have an opportunity to develope an economy that is not carbon based but unless a calamity is evident I can't see it happening. We can tamper at the margins with solar hot water systems, solar cells (which probably take as much energy to make as they will ever deliver, I am sure someone will have done the sums)

Nuclear energy once held much promise and it produces less greenhouse gases. The NIMBY principle means we are unlikely to ever find somewhere to store the waste so nuclear ain't likely to do it for us any time soon.

Maybe once we have had a couple of seasons with higher numbers destructive storms and a few more years of drought we might be looking at some local calamities but I still don't see this causing a significant shift in behaviour globally.

We'll have peace in the Middle East before we get a change in our habit of burning fossil fuels. Until we have consumed the known sources of fossil fuels we are not going to get a change.

So do we fiddle or do something?

[Ferret]

Should we sit by and do nothing? Fiddle while Rome burns comes to mind! I like others think that we have an opportunity to develope an economy that is not carbon based but unless a calamity is evident I can't see it happening. We can tamper at the margins with solar hot water systems, solar cells (which probably take as much energy to make as they will ever deliver, I am sure someone will have done the sums)

Nuclear energy once held much promise and it produces less greenhouse gases. The NIMBY principle means we are unlikely to ever find somewhere to store the waste so nuclear ain't likely to do it for us any time soon.

I am not sure of the details of what is proposed for the new carbon tax but I would have liked to have seen some money raised from it put towards the assessment / development of deep geothermal systems and towards a serious debate and development of nuclear.

CO2 sequestration implies burial of large quantities of waste for geological time scales (at least that is how I understand it) so I can't see what's different about burial of smaller quantities of radioactive waste for geological time scales. But I agree the 'NIMBY' principle is serious hurdle, much easier to sell a CO2 waste dump than a radioactive waste dump.

The future must lie in something other than coal but coal seems to be the only option people are pursuing, at least over the next 15 - 20 years, meanwhile Australia seems to have nothing waiting in wings to even enable a transition away from coal in 15 - 20 years time.

[Newbs-IIA]

I along with others also believe there should be a 5th option in this here poll...

"Global Warming may or may not be hapening, but it will not stop me from driving my smelly old Series Landrover around"

as someone said before, Emissions Tax Scam - I'm certinaly not looking forward to it :( I'm sure Captian Anna Bligh will use it as another excuse to raise rego fees again...

[Hymie]

If it is all about CO2 this might be an answer.
http://www.popsci.com.au/science/article/2009-11/co2-recycler-uses-sunlight-turn-waste-carbon-back-fuel

[Rosscoe68]

i hate talking politics and religion. but here goes my opinion, and it is that only, an opinion.
There are obviously a lot of people out there that believe there is no crysis at hand or that we humans are not responsible for it. reminds me a little of the flat world belief of the older years. my guess is those that are unbelievers will continue to be unbelievers even when it is proven that we are the cause of this global warming. also brings to mind the ozone layer hole. there were unbelievers of that for years and years, even when facts were produced and collaborated. 1 simple change to global usage of cfc's has reduced this problem over a short period of years(although there is still a problem there) and may well be a contributing factor to global warming still.
Much of this debate is pointless, unbelievers are unbelievers even in the presence of undeniable facts, and will continue to be unbelievers.
I like many of the posters above believe the biggest problem is global overcrowding, and whether you believe in god or mother nature, everytime (insert your belief here) tries to fix overpopulation by (insert global catastrophe here, aids, famine,earthquakes, etc) humanity does its best to stop the loss of life.
we humans are the biggest cause of loss of habitat and extinction of animal species, since the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs.(for those of you that believe there were dinosaurs that is)
i am not a greenie, but i like the term used by greenies and i feel it is apt. human are environmental vandals.
i dont have any answers to the problem, but i do feel ignoring it or denying it is definately not an option.

[Rosco]

Thinking about ETS etc et al ............

Have a listen to this ..

2GB Media Player - Is the Copenhagen treaty about creating a world government? (http://2gb.com.au/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=4998)

Maybe George Orwell was on the money ...

[HSVRangie]

My simplistic view.

yes the globe is warming.

it has been heated and cooled for millions of years.

I don't believe humans have any say in whether it heats or cools.

Once people started to come up with ideas about carbon trading, taxing carbon ect, that was to me its all about the $$$$, who can make what from who.

should we try to live greener MOST definetly.

If the sea level rises a few metres then Australia will once AGAIN have its great inland sea, this will make us (Australia) have one of the greatest climates in the world. Our population then can grow and be catered for.

Michael.

[isuzurover]

Once people started to come up with ideas about carbon trading, taxing carbon ect, that was to me its all about the $$$$, who can make what from who.


I agree with what you are saying, however accountants and economists can only think in terms of $$$.

If you tell an accountant/manager they should "try to live greener", or make their companies greener, some might - but most would ask what the business case is (there often is one, but it is not always obvious).

Economists have been trying for years to somehow account for or value environment/ecosystem services. Emissions trading is far from ideal, however it seems better than previous options.

Suddenly emissions have a value, accountants can factor them in and make a business decision on that basis. The assessments by CitiGroup on the effect of the ETS on the ASX100 companies was that a carbon price of <$20/T would have a negligible effect. Since it looks like the policy has been watered down and the carbon price lowered, it probably won't have any impact on businesses at all - apart from some extra paperwork for the accountants.

[WhiteD3]

Listening to AM this morning; they had a story on the Arctic being ice-free in summer by 2030.

[disco2hse]

Suddenly emissions have a value, accountants can factor them in and make a business decision on that basis. The assessments by CitiGroup on the effect of the ETS on the ASX100 companies was that a carbon price of <$20/T would have a negligible effect. Since it looks like the policy has been watered down and the carbon price lowered, it probably won't have any impact on businesses at all - apart from some extra paperwork for the accountants.

Yep, you're right. Bureaucrats get to do more work (justifies their existence) so who pays? Well, you do and I do.

Rather than an ETS tax, it should be called what it is, a Just Another Case of Knowing Other Figures might be False tax.

Alan

PS Sorry mods. Hope it's not too rude :angel:

[isuzurover]

Yep, you're right. Bureaucrats get to do more work (justifies their existence) so who pays? Well, you do and I do.

Rather than an ETS tax, it should be called what it is, a Just Another Case of Knowing Other Figures might be False tax.

Alan

PS Sorry mods. Hope it's not too rude :angel:

Of course the end user will pay more. Just like you pay more now if you select the "green power" option or whatever it is from your power company. The idea of the ETS (in a simplistic sense) is to make green power and traditional (coal/NG power) cost the same (eventually), by accounting for the extra emissions of the latter.

Btw - you are in NZ??? so the Australian ETS won't affect you...

[disco2hse]

Of course the end user will pay more. Just like you pay more now if you select the "green power" option or whatever it is from your power company. The idea of the ETS (in a simplistic sense) is to make green power and traditional (coal/NG power) cost the same (eventually), by accounting for the extra emissions of the latter.

Btw - you are in NZ??? so the Australian ETS won't affect you...

I have seen no evidence that any ETS will reduce the effects of atmospheric pollution. So you get to pay twice, once for the loss of environmental quality and again through the pocket and subsequent loss of quality of life.

We will have an ETS too, which will be about the same as the Ozzie one. They expect to have the law passed to enact it by the end of today :mad:

Alan

[strangy]

This may be over simplistic without the details for all the policy and accountant types.
Re: ETS
But I believe incentives work better than taxes.
Taxes only hurt the common man, the end user, the one who has the least say and opportunity to make a difference on a meaningfull scale.
Furthermore I believe taxing the manufactures simply raises the cost for the end user and does little to change the companies method of operations or culture.
Eg. A case in Wetern NSW where a property had deliberately and illegally used mega litres of water for irrigation of crops. The owners were prosecuted and fines levied. They simply paid the fine and happily stated that it was cheap compared to the loss of their crop and profits.

I dont propose hand outs, but what about offering a reduction in company taxes and levies, comensurate with reductions in emmissions and production of low emmission products. Further then, the Govt reduces or removes taxes on that product to the end user to encourage the use of better products.

Eg. New Rangie produces 40% less emmssions (i know wishful) then LR pay 40% less tax over all Rangie profits.
Company A, reduces its quantifiable harmful emmissions by % then they have reduction of the same % in taxes.


Then apply taxes to the companies whom increase emmissions.
This may encourage companies to return to Australia or commence operations in Aust. With potentially the least taxation worldwide.

While the logistics could easily be argued surely that is better than simply threatening to, or actively, taking money from all and sundry without any real means of achieving emmssions reduction. Unfortunately $ are involved and either the Companies or the Govt will miss out with this approach. So I guess it will come back to the common man man to pay for the not so common man

Sorry I just realised this may be getting a little off original topic.
Feel free to move it mods.

Cheers.

[frantic]

Its fine to have an emissions trading scheme but the problem is for EVERY large company who exports most of our competitors dont have to pay a green tax/ carbon scheme. So what happens is you either move your production to china or go broke.
The only way is for every country to have a flat even tax on emissions that goes back into green energy otherwise it is a joke. What we are doing is taxing 1-2% of the users and exporting the coal /minerals to the rest of the world where most of it is untaxed.

[V8Ian]

At the close of the 19th century the polloution concerns were animal dung, with the cry of "London will be buried in horse manure". It never happened. If the world is not warming, then it is cooling, as it has done forever. If we were here when Australia had an inland sea these "experts" would be trying to work out how to tax us in the name of stopping the sea levels falling. Yes let's live greener, as green as we can without going to the stupid extremes that the panic merchants are advocating. The earth is going through a natural cycle, live with it, as we do with droughts, floods, cyclones et al.

[isuzurover]

At the close of the 19th century the polloution concerns were animal dung, with the cry of "London will be buried in horse manure". It never happened. If the world is not warming, then it is cooling, as it has done forever. If we were here when Australia had an inland sea these "experts" would be trying to work out how to tax us in the name of stopping the sea levels falling. Yes let's live greener, as green as we can without going to the stupid extremes that the panic merchants are advocating. The earth is going through a natural cycle, live with it, as we do with droughts, floods, cyclones et al.

Actually, I think you will find that it was smog (and also human excrement), which were the biggest problems around that time. Smog was in fact a huge problem for 700 years!!!


In 1306, concerns over air pollution were sufficient for Edward I to (briefly) ban coal fires in London.[7] In 1661, John Evelyn's Fumifugium suggested burning fragrant wood instead of mineral coal, which he believed would reduce coughing. The Ballad of Gresham College the same year describes how the smoke "does our lungs and spirits choke, Our hanging spoil, and rust our iron."

Severe episodes of smog continued in the 19th and 20th centuries and were nicknamed "pea-soupers". The Great Smog of 1952 darkened the streets of London and killed approximately 4,000 people in the short time of 4 days (a further 8,000[8] died from its effects in the following weeks and months). Initially a flu epidemic was blamed for the loss of life. In 1956 the Clean Air Act introduced smokeless zones in the capital. Consequently, reduced sulfur dioxide levels made the intense and persistent London smog a thing of the past. It was after this the great clean-up of London began and buildings recovered their original stone façades which, during two centuries, had gradually blackened.

[Sparksdisco]

Its a bit like Y2k what a joke that was!!!!

[Rosscoe68]

Its a bit like Y2k what a joke that was!!!!

it may well end up being like the y2k bug. however if we wait and do nothing and then find out it is true then its too late, end of story.
If we act now and it is true then we win, if we act now and its not all true, then at worst we pay a little more for our power/goods etc, but hey doesn't inflation make everything go up anyhow? so isn't everything going to go up anyhow? thats guaranteed.

time for people to pull there heads out of the sand and think of things other than there back pocket.
people are critisizing the government for trying to do something positive, how about we congratulate them on the positive stuff and critisize them for doing stupid things, like letting people build there homes under active volcanoes or over active fault lines or under the sea level and expecting some concrete to hold back the ocean.

rant over :(

[vnx205]

Its a bit like Y2k what a joke that was!!!!
What some people forget is that there was a lot of effort put into preventing the problems that might have occurred if nothing had been done. It might not have been a joke if people had ignored it and pretended there was no potential for a problem.

Some people who like to pretend that Y2k was an expensive non-event also ignore the fact that a lot of the expense quoted as part of the cost of the operation was incurred by equipment being upgraded then to try to avoid problems rather than doing a scheduled upgrade in the following year.

Some people see Y2k as a joke. Others see it as evidence that if you take sensible preventative measures, you can avoid disasters.

I wonder if the same principle can be applied to this topic? :p

[disco2hse]

I wonder if the same principle can be applied to this topic? :p

Wouldn't bet on it ;)

Alan

[Chenz]

If you base the age of the world as 1 day then we have been collecting data - even taking into consideration ice cores, for about 2 seconds. How in the hell can you base any semblance of scientific hypothesis let alone theory on what the climate is doing.

Con job pure and simple. I love the way anyone who is a climate change sceptic is immediately branded like some form of leper. I also love the way they have brainwashed our kids. I love a six year-old telling me that we are all going to either fry or drown or both.

But never fear all of the money they are going to collect and bury with the ETS will lock up enough carbon to save us all. Oh wait a minute our currency is plastic. Anyway I am sure that Big Kev will be able to puff out his chest in Copenhagen and let the rest of the world include China and India that our 20 million are going to save the planet.

A agree we need to lift our game re: pollution but when are the big polluters in the third works going to get on board. I feel much better paying 30% more to live here knowing that.

[John W]

Is the earth warming; yes
Is there a human link; perhaps some
Could we reduce the human effect; only by politically unwanted methods like the Chinese one child family policy and nuclear power
Is global warming all bad? NO NO NO. There would be winners and losers. Why is there oil and gas in the polar regions, the answer can only be that there was at least one time when the world had a more moderate climate where organic stuff grew to be turned into coal gas and oil in the first place in those now frozen regions.

A warmer planet may well be a better place who knows? I'm getting too old to snow ski now anyway.

I do like this debate though for at long last there seems to be a $ value on preserving habitat and ecosystems even though the pollies are blabbing on for all the wrong reasons.

[d2dave]

Thinking about ETS etc et al ............

Have a listen to this ..

2GB Media Player - Is the Copenhagen treaty about creating a world government? (http://2gb.com.au/index2.php?option=com_newsmanager&task=view&id=4998)

Maybe George Orwell was on the money ...

After listening to this, what is planed for Copenhagen is frightening.

One can only hope that Turnbull is outed on Tuesday and the new opposition leader puts a stop to all this madness.

Dave.

[Sparksdisco]

Sorry but even if it it a isssue wont be resolved until someone profits from it. and unless there is a world wide ban on poluitents then whats the point? there would be enough money in the world economy to fix this but it might mean a shift in what is considerd wealth. but in my opinion it might happen but there is nothing that we could do about it as there is to much money at stake for any major country to make a change. Some of the largest empires where lost due to the lack of resourses. but the 21 century world started with the abuse of resourses so how can the 21 century world be demanding on third world countries to pull into line when thats what the rest of the world did to get ahead.

[ramblingboy42]

forstly,,, Mr Whippy.....are you mad? you want a double dissolution in our parliament at this time of economic progression.....yes its progression whether you like the way its happening or not....
I have just come back from Fiji and all the locals who do the island tourist trade say there has been a noticeable rise in high tide levels which has been just gently eroding the many sandcays (islands) that are daily tourist destinations, with a subsequent deterioration in the nearby coral. They, the Fijians, are a very sensitive race of people and have already totally banned catching and eating turtles which they used to love, but being made aware of the turtles plight immediately acted. They have no clue what to do about rising sea levels but pray that those who are responsible will do something and are perplexed as to why something isnt being done immediately.

[JDNSW]

I wasn't going to add to this, but there are a few points not covered.

1. I am uncertain whether human induced global warming is happening, or indeed whether global warming is happening. However, for the purposes of the rest of this post I assume that it is happening and is human caused. None of my points are from the viewpoint of denial.

2. Australia contributes less than 2% of greenhouse gases - even if Australia vanished off the face of the earth it would make no perceptible difference. Given this fact (not theory or projection or model - fact) there has been no case made that anything Australia can do will make any difference. Oh! there may be an indirect effect, by persuading other countries to do something similar, but in my view, if you think Australia has any influence on the countries that matter, youare in fantasyland. Certainly Australia may have to follow internationally agreed reductions, but the verb here is follow, not do it first.

3. The only countries that matter are China, US, India and Western Europe, in that order.

4. It is all very well to talk about emissions per head, but believe it or not, the atmosphere does not know anything about numbers of people, only total amounts - and the missing half of the equation is population. For Australia to pretend top betaking action on this and at the same time be looking at nearly doubling the population is ludicrous. I have no answers on how to do it, but world population must stabilise and preferably reduce.

5. The ETS proposed will clearly be less effective than other options, and is wide open to rorting and special deals. Far more effective and tamper-proof would be a simple carbon tax gradually introduced to replace other taxes.

6. If the government was really interested in reducing global carbon emissions, it would be planning to phase out most of the coal mining industry rather than doubling the Newcastle coal loading capacity. Similarly, just refusing to even consider nuclear power shows that they are not concerned about real reductions.


7. I have seen little evidence that the moderate warming modelled is necessarily bad overall. After all, for most of geologic time the earth has been warm enough that there have been no polar ice caps. Seen in the light of the entire history of the planet, we are still in an ice age, and not as warm as the medieval warming.

John

[kingyrules]

If you base the age of the world as 1 day then we have been collecting data - even taking into consideration ice cores, for about 2 seconds. How in the hell can you base any semblance of scientific hypothesis let alone theory on what the climate is doing.

Con job pure and simple. I love the way anyone who is a climate change sceptic is immediately branded like some form of leper. I also love the way they have brainwashed our kids. I love a six year-old telling me that we are all going to either fry or drown or both.

But never fear all of the money they are going to collect and bury with the ETS will lock up enough carbon to save us all. Oh wait a minute our currency is plastic. Anyway I am sure that Big Kev will be able to puff out his chest in Copenhagen and let the rest of the world include China and India that our 20 million are going to save the planet.

A agree we need to lift our game re: pollution but when are the big polluters in the third works going to get on board. I feel much better paying 30% more to live here knowing that.

I couldn't agree more! did humanity cause the "ice ages" no? why?. wait don't answer i know this one dinosaurs did it those pesky buggers they got what they deserve. oh and how did these ice ages start and end? who can say because we only have accurate weather records for about 100 years or so. now these experts tell us that there is frozen trees in the arctic how is that! because if the ice melts the whole planet will be under water!

science experiment for you at home.
Step 1: Take a glass half fill it with ice cubes
Step 2: fill the remaining of the glass with water, right to the top.
Step 3: wait!!!!!!

did the glass over flow when the ice melted?

Question, where does oil come from I've been told decaying plant matter buried deep in the earth, then how come we get oil in the middle of the ocean?

global warming, climate change, carbon footprints buzz words designed to mobilise the ignorant to do nothing but what there told.

don't get me wrong i like breathing clean air and enjoy nature, but i refuse to believe that experts know every thing and action should not be rushed into.

maybe those that stand to lose the most from clean technology should be made to develop it to reduce the commercial resistance to a better tomorrow.

[JDNSW]

Question, where does oil come from I've been told decaying plant matter buried deep in the earth, then how come we get oil in the middle of the ocean?
.........

The evidence confirms that most if not all oil comes from plant and animal material buried in sediments. We do not find oil in "the middle of oceans", but we do find it where there are thick sections of sediment (up to tens of kilometres) below the ocean.

These locations are often where there are major rivers delivering sediment a long way out into the ocean and often into deep water, examples being offshore South America (Amazon and Orinocco and others), offshore Nigeria (Niger), Gulf of Mexico (Mississippi). Other locations are where sedimentary basins are submerged below shallow seas, and examples of these are Bass Strait and the North Sea - these will have had major quantities of sediment delivered by rivers, but this may have been a long time ago, and the rivers no longer exist or are a lot smaller due to climate and topographic changes.

But there is no oil in the middle of oceans. In the middle of oceans there is only a very thin veneer of sediments, and therefore burial of sediments is insufficient to generate any hydrocarbons.

John

[isuzurover]

...

2. Australia contributes less than 2% of greenhouse gases - even if Australia vanished off the face of the earth it would make no perceptible difference. Given this fact (not theory or projection or model - fact) there has been no case made that anything Australia can do will make any difference. Oh! there may be an indirect effect, by persuading other countries to do something similar, but in my view, if you think Australia has any influence on the countries that matter, youare in fantasyland. Certainly Australia may have to follow internationally agreed reductions, but the verb here is follow, not do it first.

3. The only countries that matter are China, US, India and Western Europe, in that order.

4. It is all very well to talk about emissions per head, but believe it or not, the atmosphere does not know anything about numbers of people, only total amounts - and the missing half of the equation is population. For Australia to pretend top betaking action on this and at the same time be looking at nearly doubling the population is ludicrous. I have no answers on how to do it, but world population must stabilise and preferably reduce.

...

Re 2 and 3: There are ~20 countries in the world that are roughly equivalent to Australia in terms of emissions. If all of them take no action because they think it will have no effect, then that will be 20-40% of global emissions - which is quite significant.

Even if what we do will have an insignificant effect, it is rather hypocritical to sit back and tell the rest of the world to fix it when we are the worst emitters per capita, and also stand to be one of the most (detrimentally) affected by climate change.

Some scientists are starting to believe that no amount of reductions will be sufficient, and we will need to geo-engineer the climate by seeding the southern ocean with iron (which has found to be the limiting factor in phytoplankton growth).

I agree completely with 4.

[isuzurover]

global warming, climate change, carbon footprints buzz words designed to mobilise the ignorant to do nothing but what there told.

don't get me wrong i like breathing clean air and enjoy nature, but i refuse to believe that experts know every thing and action should not be rushed into.

Scientists must be smarter than people give them credit for - if they are able to fool the world's governments into thinking something is happening that isn't...

If we wait around until we have conclusive evidence that climate change is happening, it will be too late. As White D3 said - switching to cleaner, greener technologies is the right course of action, so why not do it anyway...

[JohnF]

I could not vote in the Poll as I did not have the option of saying what I think.

Did you see on TV recently how the Greenie named Bellamy [his first name might have bee David, but I am not sure] has been banned by the BBC from giving his views on Climate Change. This is censorship in the extreme, in order for Britain to introduce carbon taxes, a massive new tax on all tax-payers, as Australia is about to do.

Now Bellamy on TV asked why is Greenland called Greenland when today it is white and covered with Ice & Snow. See, I already knew that in 1100AD when the Vikings settled Greenland there were massive forests in the middle of Greenland which is how Greenland was given its name. Then the world entered a Mini Ice Age so that now those 1000 year old Greenland forests are now 2 kilometres under the Ice. The British Government has banned people pointing this out, so Bellamy has been banned from the ABC so that he can not tell people this fact.

Similar for Antarctica. The map of the world copied from older Maps by Admiral Piri Reis in 1513AD, accurately showed Antarctica, the Antarctic rivers and mountains that are now under Ice. This old Piri Reis map dated well before Captain Cook first sailed down into the Ocean around Antarctica. In 1956AD the Hydrographic Office of the US Navy issued a very interesting statement on this old map. The US Navy said:--

“The Hydrographic Office of the Navy has verified an ancient chart—it is called the Peri Reis map, that goes back more than 5,000 years [I suggest it may not be that old, as Antarctica is covered with Ice they wanted a long period for it to be covered with Ice, not just a thousand years, but as Greenland put on a depth of 2 kilometres of Ice in only 1000 years, I do not see why the original that the Peri Reis map was copied from in 1513AD, needs to be much older than a thousand years or so]. It’s so accurate, only one thing could explain it, --a world wide survey. The Hydrographic Office could not believe it either, at first. But they not only proved the map genuine, it has been used to correct errors in some present day maps.”

Logically this Admiral Piri Reis map was made before the Mini Ice Age that covered Greenland’s forests with Ice also covered Antarctica’s already mapped Rivers & Mountains by Ice in the same way, probably at around the same time. Other old maps that also show Antarctica without the Ice are in existence.

Along the East Coast of Australia there are old fossil beaches 6 meters above the current sea level showing us the sea was once 6 meters above the current level, or else the Australian continent rose 6 meters. So it is foolish to build in low spots that will go under water as sea levels start to return to their normal levels. Many ancient cities are now already under water, indicating that 3-4 thousand years ago the sea level was even much lower than today. Rising sea levels submerged these cities underwater,

I will give a simple experiment that you can do if you have access to a Greenhouse in order to grow plants. Double its CO2 content by adding extra CO2 [available as CO2 gas in large Cylinders, as in CO2 fire extinguishers] and give a high humidity then guess what happen to your plants in this Greenhouse environment? The plants grow much larger, healthier, and stronger under these higher CO2 conditions. Now look at fossil plants and see how large they were compared to today. Then look at the fossil animals that fed on these large healthy plants and note how they were much larger than animals today, all due to higher CO2 levels.

Now I use to believe in the whole concept of Global Warming, but as I examined such evidences, and many more evidences, I was forced to change my mind rather than “believe a lie,” I Thessalonians 2:9-12.

Last week the UN experts on Global Warming stated “we can’t account for the LACK of warming” according to Sunday’s ABC morning show, which ended at 10.oo am.

[isuzurover]

I will give a simple experiment that you can do if you have access to a Greenhouse in order to grow plants. Double its CO2 content by adding extra CO2 [available as CO2 gas in large Cylinders, as in CO2 fire extinguishers] and give a high humidity then guess what happen to your plants in this Greenhouse environment? The plants grow much larger, healthier, and stronger under these higher CO2 conditions. Now look at fossil plants and see how large they were compared to today. Then look at the fossil animals that fed on these large healthy plants and note how they were much larger than animals today, all due to higher CO2 levels.



I am amazed that people continually bring up simplistic (flawed) examples such as this (and the ice cube example above). These examples are so elementary, don't you think they have been taken into account already into existing models...???

[bushrover]

"The climate is always changing and there's nothing any politician can do about it".
This doesn't mean they shouldn't tidy the place up a bit though:D.

biggin - I am not having a go at you (here comes the 'but') but, what ever happened to 'personal responsibility' in our world. No problems we face today will be fixed by politicians, they can only be fixed by 'me'. Every time a problem crops up instead of saying 'what are they going to do about it'? ask yourself 'what am I going to do about it'? Whether you believe global warming, climate change, or Santa won't come this Christmas is a problem, we all should be looking to ourselves to do what we can rather than waiting for 'them to do something about it'.

There should be another poll - what radio station talk back program do you listen to? - and the results would probably mirror this poll.

Rick

[JDNSW]

Re 2 and 3: There are ~20 countries in the world that are roughly equivalent to Australia in terms of emissions. If all of them take no action because they think it will have no effect, then that will be 20-40% of global emissions - which is quite significant.

Even if what we do will have an insignificant effect, it is rather hypocritical to sit back and tell the rest of the world to fix it when we are the worst emitters per capita, and also stand to be one of the most (detrimentally) affected by climate change.

Some scientists are starting to believe that no amount of reductions will be sufficient, and we will need to geo-engineer the climate by seeding the southern ocean with iron (which has found to be the limiting factor in phytoplankton growth).

I agree completely with 4.

I do not suggest that Australia should take no action - but I do suggest that Australia has no business "telling" other countries what to do on either this or any other matter. Australia should be part of a global agreement - not taking unilateral action before the agreement (To do otherwise is to simply export industries to the countries that don't agree). And saying that Australia cutting emissions is critical to the survival of the planet is simply not true, and the continual use of this statement damages the case for reductions. The case is one of good global citizenship, and of trying to persuade the major emitters to reduce. To proclaim that we are serious about reducing emissions while at the same time boosting coal exports and celebrating massive population growth is just plain disgusting hypocrisy! And using cap and trade rather than a carbon tax is an open invitation to perversion of the system.

I continue to maintain that emissions per capita are not relevant - consider, for example, that European per capita emissions are much lower than Australia's, in part because they have lower emissions due to land clearing simply because they cleared all their forests centuries ago, and lower emissions per capita from transport, largely because their distances are much shorter. I won't mention that their emissions from power generation are much lower because they use a substantial proportion of nuclear power.

My understanding about the idea of seeding the southern ocean with iron is that the numbers just do not work - quite apart from the damage to ecosystems involved and uncertainty as to whether adding iron would really boost CO2 conversion - needs a large scale trial to see this.

John

[d2dave]

One thing I am learning is the number of people who don't believe this is man made is growing by the day.

This thread has a larger percentage, and everyone I know except for two people.

Living in country Victoria a lot of farmers I have spoken to who have been struggling with drought all reckon it is crap.

And living in the country it is quite common to talk to strangers and quite often the topic comes up, and every one I bump into all agree it is a natural thing.

If this being the case why is our government going against what appears to be what the majority want.

I can answer this, Kevin Rudd with his his gigantic ego and ambition to rule the world.

A few years ago this was not called climate change, it was called global warming but since the earth has been cooling for eight odd years they had to find a new name, climate change, even though the main concern seems to be rising sea levels.

I would like to know how climate change, combined with a cooling planet is going to make this happen.

Dave.

[Sparksdisco]

My understanding about the idea of seeding the southern ocean with iron is that the numbers just do not work - quite apart from the damage to ecosystems involved and uncertainty as to whether adding iron would really boost CO2 conversion - needs a large scale trial to see this.




Must of been BHP trying to sell more iron ore:twisted::twisted::twisted:
Sounds like a great idea:o:o:o keep me in a job anyway:angel::angel:

[afpdisc]

If they say the polar caps are melting and will result in higher water levels then why doesn't my Scotch overflow when the ice melts?

[vnx205]

If they say the polar caps are melting and will result in higher water levels then why doesn't my Scotch overflow when the ice melts?

Your scotch would overflow if the ice was sitting on a shelf above the scotch, as it is in Greenland and Antartica.

[isuzurover]

Someone emailed this to me today:


Let's say 9 out of 10 doctors told you that you had a heart condition that will incapacitate you (if not kill you) in ten years, adding that the condition can be remedied by changing your lifestyle. The lifestyle changes would be onerous, but nothing that you wouldn't be able to adapt to. Would you a) demand better proof of the heart condition from the nine doctors in agreement, b) wait for technology that would allow you to eat deep-fried twinkies without the deleterious side-effects or c) suck it up? Only a fool would choose a or b. Yet, so far, those are the two types of options we've chosen in response to our global crisis.

[Jamo]

For me that's the issue. As Darwin said" It is not the strongest who will survive, nor the most intelligent, but those most responsive to change"

General thinking seems to be ' lets think of ways to hang onto to things exactly as they are now', rather than thinking of ways to adapt.

The ETS is a classic example. Tax Middle Australia so the polluters like coal power can keep going for a few more years. If the govt was really interested in stopping pollution it would simply legislate to ban such activities.

If you are on the coast and rising sea levels are going to put you in the drink, then there's a simple answer - move! Developed nations must help developing nations.

As Mr Dylan said

"Come gather 'round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You'll be drenched to the bone.
If your time to you
Is worth savin'
Then you better start swimmin'
Or you'll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won't come again
And don't speak too soon
For the wheel's still in spin
And there's no tellin' who
That it's namin'.
For the loser now
Will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don't stand in the doorway
Don't block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled,
The battle outside ragin'
Will soon shake your windows
And rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin'.

Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don't criticize
What you can't understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is
Rapidly aging
Please get out of the new one
If you can't lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin'.

The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is
Rapidly fadin'.
And the first one now
Will later be last
For the times they are a-changin'"

[JDNSW]

.........

Now Bellamy on TV asked why is Greenland called Greenland when today it is white and covered with Ice & Snow. See, I already knew that in 1100AD when the Vikings settled Greenland there were massive forests in the middle of Greenland which is how Greenland was given its name. Then the world entered a Mini Ice Age so that now those 1000 year old Greenland forests are now 2 kilometres under the Ice. .....
.............

The Greenland ice cap is hundreds of thousands of years old, and although there were some trees if not forests when it was settled by the Norse in 986AD, these were not below what is now permanent ice. The climate was a lot warmer than it is now, but the main reason it was called Greenland is that the person naming it (Eric the Red) was effectively a real estate salesman - he was looking for settlers from Iceland to join him (he had been exiled from Iceland "because of some killings", hence his sobriquet). The timber available was sufficiently sparse to encourage expeditions to North America, mainly to get timber.

The Norse settlements were cut off from Iceland and Europe by the increasing shelf ice in the 14th century and died out within the next hundred years. Bone analysis from burials shows repeated famine, and clashes with the newly arrived Inuit may have helped, as well as cutting all their timber and causing soil erosion by peat cutting (the presence of peat shows a warmer than present climate, persisting for many years prior to the settlements).

John

[scrambler]

This has been a much more civil thread than I thought it would be - brief moment to all pat ourselves on the back.

My humble perspective on a couple of items mentioned so far:

1) While our data on climate over the whole life of the planet is shaky, what we really need to know is the history of climate during the period of human agriculture - unless we plan to return to a hunter-gather lifestyle or become extinct in favour of giant chickens and oversized insects, agriculture is the essential issue. This period we have a good handle on. Not perfect, but good enough for practical purposes. And while there have been fluctuations, and we are not yet as warm as some past periods, the rate of increase is greater than in previous warmings.

2) The seas are a huge heat sink - the temperature of the air (what most people think of as "global warming") is largely irrelevent provided the seas are warming, and all the data I have seen says they are.

3) If the sea-ice melts then there will be no measurable change in sea level. If the antactic land ice, and Greenland land ice melt, they will effectively add to the volume of the seas and sea levels will rise. I understand that this could be as much as 10m, which will still not give Toowoomba a beach, so my real estate will be worth no more.

4) The main issue with melting ice caps is just how much heat is required for this, and the heat buffering effect. When ice melts there is NO RISE in temperature (ice at zero degrees and water at zero degrees are the same temperature) but an immense amount of heat energy - in fact the amount of energy required to heat water at zero to about 80 degrees. If the glaciers, sea ice etc were not melting, seawater temperatures would be rising MUCH faster than they currently are.

5) Plants require a lot more than CO2 to live, and will die in a pure CO2 environment. All other things being equal, they will grow a little better with a little more CO2. But who cares. It's not about the plants. The CO2 is a blanket, keeping us warm at night, giving the whole world a fever (potentially). If it's good for a couple of weeds it's still not good for people, which surely is our primary concern. Most people don't realise that plants only use the carbon from CO2 and release the O2 as waste, then reabsorb O2 to "beathe", the same as the rest of life on this planet. They also release CO2 as a result of their respiration, though the nett effect is O2 release over their life. Plants will grow in the dark, but are nett emitters of CO2 without light.

6) "Climate change" is preferred to "global warming" because a lot of places will see more extreme weather rather than balmy summers all year. Most of Australia falls into this category. Some places will see more cold snaps due to global warming. The UK is expected to be colder due to Gulf Stream changes. Local average temperatures might be higher, lower or the same but varations are predicted to increase.

7) If our poll is representative, setting aside the "don't know" vote, the vote is neatly split 1/3, 1/3, 1/3. There is no consensus in the general public.

I saw an economics show on the ABC titled "Addicted to Money." The final episode was called "Peak Everything" and made the simple observation that the globe does not have the resources to give the present population a North American lifestyle, let alone sustain both economic and population growth. We will ALL have to live with fewer resources, global warming or not. There WILL be "carbon trading schemes" by name or simply by fact as all carbon-based resources become increasingly scarce, and therefore expensive. The aim, surely, is to ease into this rather than wake one day to find we can't get/afford fuel for our Land Rovers.

[buzz66]

Greatest con since Moses was a boy.

Pure and simply another way for the governmant to tax the crap out everyone.

Why can't people see this:mad:

[waynep]

That's a very well though out, rationale argument Steve, probably the best I've read on this subject in a while.

I too am coming to the conclusion that the coincidence of huge population growth, the ability of the planet to feed those people and the decreased availability of liquid fossil fuels will become more important than climate change in the next 10-20 years.

Personally I can't see it being resolved without a couple of big wars, human nature being what it is, and the culture that we must fight to maintain our lifestyle at all costs.

[strangy]

Someone emailed this to me today:

Problem is that its not 9 out of 10, its close enough to even.
It is just the ones who differ are given negative names like "Climate change Sceptic" and are not given the air time to spell out their studies and conclusions.
Using the same method those who believe the govt. could be called "Climate Change Scaremeongers"

If I beleived everything the TV or radio blurted out at me without questioning or asking for justification, I would believe that the only thing happening in the world was about Tiger Woods, Britney Spears and the never ending list of bed jumping celebrities. Oh and Climate Change! There may be a bit of scuffle with some country somewhere but wait...... a cute puppy being rescued is bit more important than ..... what was that again?

I reckon most here are actually on the same page. IE
We would all live cleaner and greener whenever possible.

But IMO the whole spectacle presented by the Govt and media has nothing to do with any benefit to the world or its population.
Its pure and simple Cash for the coffers.

This thread probably has more depth and concern in real terms than will ever be truthfully presented.

To back this statement let me share the follwing. My 17 yr old attended a govt funded "Climate Change Summit" for schools.
After being told that anyone who dissagreed with the argument was quote: "an Idiot".
Kids who dared an explanation were ignored or derided publicly.
The speakers then wanted the students to perform a "Rain Dance" to help the globe cool.
Again from those who want you to accept their point of view without question, call everyone else names. Who are the idiots?

I really dont think the debate is about any change in our environent, (it may be for the Green groups but not for those with the power.) but rather, how many we can convince to our way of thinking, to enable the maximum amount of $ to gleaned from the situation. If the world actually benefits, bonus.

I truly doubt that, regardless of which way you lean, if Climate Change is a problem, that it can be addressed by $.

[buzz66]

Take a look here at the big picture.

RapidShare: 1-CLICK Web hosting - Easy Filehosting (http://rapidshare.com/files/316426472/Climate_Change.pps)

Choose free download, Its a must read

[d2dave]

Take a look here at the big picture.

RapidShare: 1-CLICK Web hosting - Easy Filehosting (http://rapidshare.com/files/316426472/Climate_Change.pps)

Choose free download, Its a must read

buzz66,
What a great site, it's a shame that all this stuff is being censored by the media.

Dave.

[isuzurover]

Problem is that its not 9 out of 10, its close enough to even.

Any proof of that? It may be 50/50 among the general public... Someone published a list of 500 scientists "doctors" working in climate science who supposedly disagreed with climate change consensus of the IPCC. Many didn't know or consent to being on the list and asked to be removed when they found out. Regardless - 500 is a pretty small percentage of global experts ("doctors") in the field.



Take a look here at the big picture.

RapidShare: 1-CLICK Web hosting - Easy Filehosting (http://rapidshare.com/files/316426472/Climate_Change.pps)

Choose free download, Its a must read

That is extremely biased and misleading. To pick an easy one "CO2 is a colourless and odourless gas..."

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/edu/dees/V1003/images/absorption.gif

Try telling that to a mosquito - they can see UV...

To pick another one - "increasing co2 will increase plant growth rates" This is extremely simplistic and misleading.

e.g. see here:

Climate Change Surprise: High Carbon Dioxide Levels Can Retard Plant Growth, Study Reveals

ScienceDaily (Dec. 6, 2002) — The prevailing view among scientists is that global climate change may prove beneficial to many farmers and foresters – at least in the short term. The logic is straightforward: Plants need atmospheric carbon dioxide to produce food, and by emitting more CO2 into the air, our cars and factories create new sources of plant nutrition that will cause some crops and trees to grow bigger and faster. But an unprecedented three-year experiment conducted at Stanford University is raising questions about that long-held assumption. Writing in the journal Science, researchers concluded that elevated atmospheric CO2 actually reduces plant growth when combined with other likely consequences of climate change – namely, higher temperatures, increased precipitation or increased nitrogen deposits in the soil.

[vnx205]

... ... ... ..

That is extremely biased and misleading. ... ... ... ...

.... ... ... ..This is extremely simplistic and misleading.


The problem you have identified is quite common in this and a lot of other complex issues that are debated in public or in the media.

It is unfortunately very easy to appear to demolish complex arguments with grossly oversimplified answers.

As people so often don't understand how complex the issue is, they reject the complicated, scientifically based argument that goes over their heads in favour of the simplified but unscientific one that they think they can understand.

Some of the people who appear to me to have a good grasp of genetics and scientific method seem to be having the same problem over in the other hot current thread, which I think is up to about 43 pages. Their detailed, well reasoned arguments are met with responses which may appear convincing to people who can't or won't see how superficial those opposing arguments are.

I have always like the comment, "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong."

I see some similarities to the problems you have identified in the article to which you refer.

[d2dave]

The problem you have identified is quite common in this and a lot of other complex issues that are debated in public or in the media.

It is unfortunately very easy to appear to demolish complex arguments with grossly oversimplified answers.

As people so often don't understand how complex the issue is, they reject the complicated, scientifically based argument that goes over their heads in favour of the simplified but unscientific one that they think they can understand.

Some of the people who appear to me to have a good grasp of genetics and scientific method seem to be having the same problem over in the other hot current thread, which I think is up to about 43 pages. Their detailed, well reasoned arguments are met with
responses which may appear convincing to people who can't or won't see how superficial those opposing arguments are.

I have always like the comment, "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple and wrong."

I see some similarities to the problems you have identified in the article to which you refer.

You are correct in that a lot of us don't understand the science, so we therefore have to listen to the experts.
This is what I, and I would assume others do, and as there seems to be far more(like 30,000) saying it isn't true verses a half dozen who have now admited that they have fuged the figures(climate gate) and can't explain why the earth is cooling.

Another reason I don't believe is the past 10 years humans have pumped record amounts of co2 into to air yet during this period the globe has cooled.

Dave.

[vnx205]

.. .. ... ..

Another reason I don't believe is the past 10 years humans have pumped record amounts of co2 into to air yet during this period the globe has cooled.

Dave.
I don't want to get involved in an argument about global warming just now, but I want to try and make a point about how an obvious, simple answer can be wrong.

I suspect that while what you have said appears to be a significant weakness in the argument about warming, it may not be. It may be that looking at a decade is an inappropriate thing to do when you are talking about climate. Maybe a decade is too short a time.

I'm sure everyone has seen the graph below. If you look at the last decade, things appear to have cooled. If you look at the last fifty years, they have warmed.

I wonder how much knowledge of the way climate works you would need to have to know whether you should be looking at the last ten years or the last fifty.

http://www.fileden.com/files/2008/7/16/2005444/Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png

I know people have already made a point about whether these temperature figures can be taken at face value, but that only reinforces my argument.

My point is simply that just because something appears to be obvious, simple and convincing doesn't mean it is correct.

[clean32]

I have little to no understanding of global worming.

While reading this thread one poster made the comment that if Australia cut emissions it would have a negligible global effect. So why is Australia leading ??. Its actually a good question and I think there are a number of possible answers.

Rudd is positioning himself for a post PM global Dick type job. Well why not, that’s just being smart and keeping an eye on the future. But the bugbear in that theory is that he leads a party so as I doubt he has organized global jobs for all and he cant do anything with out there support. So we can file that one away.

Next. It’s just a Tax Grab. UUMM as I understand it I think its more like a share market. toss a dozen or so solar panels in the back yard, stick up a wind mill, get 3 phase power put on and hay wow not only have you got an income of 30K a year but you get all these carbon credits to sell, either to the local power station, car factory, accountants office or even the local fish and chip shop. All it will do is shift some money around and when the dollars stack up the local coal burning power station will fill in there mine and cover it over with solar panels or what ever. The details are not what I am talking about.
To put it simply a strong economy is how fast the money spins around. I think from memory there is only $83 dollars for every Australian citizen. USA $124 from memory I could be wrong, but its not much really. OK so lets put that one on the shelf


Let’s start looking at a global picture. 20 years ago the USA was all powerful. During the cold war every one sort of had to pick a side. With the fall of the soviets, many countries discovered that they didn’t actually have to do what the US dictated any more.
Next is the opening up of china and its flow on effect. The USA no longer enjoys the large gap between the size of its economy and the next largest ( was Japan) China is breathing down there necks and will over take them. This has been a god send for Australia, china is a large market for us and we are also a market for them. China has looked at the traditional markets for raw materials and found them self’s locked out. They had to open up or assist new suppliers. South America, Africa and to a much lesser existent Australia. Ok we all understand that bit.
Lets look out side the pacific rim or the more traditional powerful countries who were either our enemies or our allies.
Russia became a democracy. Year right, it may be democracy but not as we know it.
Russia who couldn’t pay the wagers of there doctors teachers police and who made ½ the KGB redundant ( ever wonder where the Russian mafia came from) and who in only 15 years was able to pay back all there loans ( BILLIONS) and who in recent years have flexed there mussels in the Balkans, Georgia Bulgaria and the ongoing games with the Ukraine.
Putin’s bipolar speech is a real indicator
Then we get MEDVEDEV’s speech about following china, read become communist again.

Europe well we can forget about them. Europe will be Muslim with in my lifetime; the numbers seem to stack, from what I have seen.

So where does that leave us. Well in my grandfather time he saw the world shift from a British French German. To my fathers time who say the US soviet china to what I believe. I will see Indian china and hopefully Australia and the 3rd leg of the stool as being the larger global influence.
Global worming is Australia’s way of making its mark, forcing a crack into the old order.

But hay I could be wrong

[Hucksta]

The climate may be changing but are we so arrogant to think that we are more powerful than Earth and are the casue of it ...... give me a break.

I am all for making our place a healthier place, I save a bit of water and I don't throw rubbish on the side of the road and i don't like wasting electricity ... it saves me money anyway.

However, I will start belieiving this crap is a crisis when the warming alarmists start acting like it is a crisis. Al GORE (The Hypocrite) has a house (or houses) that use more power in a month than my place would use in a year. He then jets around the joint telling me to read by candle light as he belches gases into the sky ... idiot .. all the while making millions out of the sheeple ....

And anyone who believes the scare mongering had better seel the V8 or the Oiler as you are making it 'hot'.

Now, where are the keys to my Disco ....

[vnx205]

The climate may be changing but are we so arrogant to think that we are more powerful than Earth and are the casue of it ...... give me a break.
... .. ... ... ... ... .. .

That sounds suspiciously like the attitude of the people who thought that the world's oceans were so vast that it was not possible for mankind to deplete the apparently limitless supply of fish in the sea.

The complete collapse of cod fisheries put an end to that misconception.

[Hucksta]

That sounds suspiciously like the attitude of the people who thought that the world's oceans were so vast that it was not possible for mankind to deplete the apparently limitless supply of fish in the sea.

The complete collapse of cod fisheries put an end to that misconception.

Yes, i agree ...

If you want to get into misconceptions ..... how about the flat earth theory ... the sky falling in on peoples heads .... the Y2K bug .... weather experts predicting the weather 7 days in advance and getting absolutely wrong half the time.

Now we have slobbering headless chicken like people running around saying that it's all over for us.

The way i see it there is no reliable evidence to say anything at the moment. I'm more than happy to contribute to a better environment, in fact, i own a farm and I continually clean blackberries, clear my waterways and creeks. I have planted over 100 trees on it for shade. iuse solar power for some of my fences and lighting. I would hazard a guess that I contribute more to a healthier environment than most of the green crowd.

[WhiteD3]

BBC - BBC World Service Programmes - Discovery, Exchanges At The Frontier, Episode 1 - Rajendra Pachauri (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p0053j3y)

[isuzurover]

I find this interesting:

All of the world's flights in 72 seconds - Short Sharp Science - New Scientist (http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2008/12/all-of-the-worlds-flights.html)

[Milton477]

Its all happened before, read the rocks. Just an excuse to extort tax from us.

[isuzurover]

Its all happened before, read the rocks.

Has it, and your proof is??? What about if we read ice cores instead???

I assume you have been reading/listening to Ian Plimer?

In which case you may wish to read this:
http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91

[strangy]

Has it, and your proof is??? What about if we read ice cores instead???

I assume you have been reading/listening to Ian Plimer?

In which case you may wish to read this:
http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91

Are you talking about the corelation of age/ time in relation ice depth?

[isuzurover]

Are you talking about the corelation of age/ time in relation ice depth?

I am talking about these data:
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2009/12/1017.jpg

And we are not just talking CO2 here. Methane has 25 times the global warming potential of CO2 (averaged over 100 years).
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2009/12/1017.jpg

And N2O has 298x the global warming potential of CO2 - averaged over 100 years:
https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2009/12/1017.jpg

[vnx205]

One of us appears to have misunderstood the other.

Just in case i didn't make my view clear, I'll try to clarify things.

You said:

The climate may be changing but are we so arrogant to think that we are more powerful than Earth and are the casue of it ...... give me a break.
... .. ..



So I said:

That sounds suspiciously like the attitude of the people who thought that the world's oceans were so vast that it was not possible for mankind to deplete the apparently limitless supply of fish in the sea.

The complete collapse of cod fisheries put an end to that misconception.
And you said:


Yes, i agree ...

If you want to get into misconceptions ..... how about the flat earth theory ... the sky falling in on peoples heads .... the Y2K bug .... weather experts predicting the weather 7 days in advance and getting absolutely wrong half the time.
... ... ... ...

What I meant was that fishermen thought there was no way they could deplete fish stocks, but they did.
I meant to imply that people keep insisting that human activity can't have an impact on the world, but perhaps they can.

I offer the demise of the cod fishing industry not just as an example of people making a mistake, but also as evidence that human activity can have a much greater effect than some people think.

Very simply, I am not convinced by the argument that we are little and the world is big, so we could not possible have an impact on it.

[vnx205]

I am talking about these data:

Who cares about the information; at least you have the grammar right.

I am pleased (as I'm sure Ron would be) that there is still someone out there who knows that "data" is plural.

Only kidding. I have welcomed your input. I even waded through most of that very convincing, comprehensive demolition of much of Plimer's arguments.

The impression I have is that there are decades of rigorous research which strongly suggest that there is a problem. The climate skeptics seem to think that just because they have found one small weakness, error or inconsistency that they have managed to completely destroy that vast body of scientific evidence that has been collected. I wonder how many of the skeptics know just how much evidence has been collected.

[StuRR80]

Is the earth warming; yes
Is there a human link; perhaps some
Could we reduce the human effect; only by politically unwanted methods like the Chinese one child family policy and nuclear power
Is global warming all bad? NO NO NO. There would be winners and losers. Why is there oil and gas in the polar regions, the answer can only be that there was at least one time when the world had a more moderate climate where organic stuff grew to be turned into coal gas and oil in the first place in those now frozen regions.

A warmer planet may well be a better place who knows? I'm getting too old to snow ski now anyway.

I do like this debate though for at long last there seems to be a $ value on preserving habitat and ecosystems even though the pollies are blabbing on for all the wrong reasons.

Agree!

Not about the skiing part though - I do like a snowboard every now and then!

[slt]

For those who are 'sceptics' for ideological reasons, you can ignore the following, since a) you're not going to like the answers, and/or b) you're not going to be convinced anyway!

For those sitting on the fence, have a search down the list for the latest objection or argumet the 'sceptics' give you, and find the answer!

For those who are in the business of trying to educate, or those who feel that they need to 'talk' to the 'sceptics' or those sitting on the fence, this should be a valuable resource:

How to Talk to a Climate Sceptic : A Few Things Ill Considered (http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php)
RealClimate: Index (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/#Responses)

[JohnF]

The Greenland ice cap is hundreds of thousands of years old, and although there were some trees if not forests when it was settled by the Norse in 986AD, these were not below what is now permanent ice. The climate was a lot warmer than it is now, but the main reason it was called Greenland is that the person naming it (Eric the Red) was effectively a real estate salesman - he was looking for settlers from Iceland to join him (he had been exiled from Iceland "because of some killings", hence his sobriquet). The timber available was sufficiently sparse to encourage expeditions to North America, mainly to get timber.

The Norse settlements were cut off from Iceland and Europe by the increasing shelf ice in the 14th century and died out within the next hundred years. Bone analysis from burials shows repeated famine, and clashes with the newly arrived Inuit may have helped, as well as cutting all their timber and causing soil erosion by peat cutting (the presence of peat shows a warmer than present climate, persisting for many years prior to the settlements).

John

Hi, spent all weekend preparing four posts, one Post with a photo showing a large number of strata layers wich will become rock, around 50 feet thick of different strata layers, which were laid down in just 26 months. And the other three different posts on Polystrate Trees to answer Scallops question to me on the Evolution Thread. last Friday I did Post on that thread to say that I would answer that question from Scallops on Monday. However on Monday I found this Evolution Thread had been removed/censored [two of these posts on Polystrate fossil trees were fairly short posts, while one was a fairly long post]. I do not have the Internet at home, so was going to copy and paste my prepared Word Documents into the Evolution thread to give the Evidence of Polystrate trees to prove Evolution is wrong for all time.

I am sad about this evolution thread being removed, and lots of people had attacked my Bible based ideas in that thread, but I did not mind such attacks on what I believe, and was about to show that Polystrate Trees actually prove the whole idea of evolution is totally wrong. The Bible tells us to “Prove all Things” 1 Thessalonians 5:21, so I do not mind people questioning why I do believe the way I do. I do not believe you can prove anything if you do not question things.
After all I have been attacked by a Toyota Driver for driving a “crap” Land Rover Range Rover, this Toyota driver believing that the Toyota is the best Four Wheel Drive made. I asked him why the Australian Army used so many Land Rovers. So I do not mind a bit of criticism from uniformed people.

Perhaps it was what I said about a certain deceased member of a Certain Religious Order that got this Evolution Thread removed. I certainly hope not. After all a number of members of that same certain religious order have been convicted by the courts of Sex abuse of Children. That does not condemn all of those in this Order as being Paedophiles, because some members of this religious order were convicted of Paedophilia. After all there are rotten eggs in many baskets. We need to compare their teachings to the Bible before deciding whether their teachings are right or not. So the one member of that certain Religious Order, if what I said on the evolution thread about him was correct, does not necessarily represent the thinking of that whole order, and does not condemn that whole Religious Order. But I will not say more on this subject; though do add that I personally was never abused.

Would have preferred that just my reply and the posts I was replying to be removed, if it was the case that what I wrote offended anyone. But I did not see any posts after 4.00 PM Friday, so I do not know of anything of what may have been said later in this Evolution Thread that may have caused it to be removed. I do know some people were laughing at what I wrote about Creation/Noah’s Flood Evidences, but that does not bother me. I always do want people to think for themselves and examine all the evidence for themselves. I do know that God gives us enough very plain evidence to be a believer, without us having to hang our heads in shame at every little criticism of the Bible.

Now to reply to JDNSW, on the matter of the Green land Ice Cap. He claims it is 100,000 or so years old. I would dispute that, claim. Early Vikings claimed the centre of Greenland was full of Forests, and when you drill through the 2 kilometre Ice Cap you do hit these same frozen forests that these early Viking settlers described.

Dating of the Antarctic Ice Cap, plus the Greenland Ice Cap is made by drilling Ice cores, and measuring in a Lab all the rings in a core said to represent a year. I suggest each ring represents just one weather event, their being hundreds of weather events [rings representing one event such as one blizzard] each year.

In a previous post on this thread I did mention that in the early 1500’s Admiral Peri Reis copied an older map drawn on animal skins, that showed Antarctica without its Ice Cap. In the 1950’s the United States Navy claims hat the map Admiral Peri Reis copied was 5000 years old. I think it was much younger than that, believing in Noah’s world wide flood about 4500 years ago, but for argument sake let us assume around 5000 years for this Peri Reis map. Like Greenland’s Ice Cores we get dates of 100’s of thousands of years for the Antarctic Ice Cores, but this around 5000 year old map shows Antarctica before it was covered by Ice, showing the Antarctica Continent as two separate Islands, showing all the Antarctica rivers and valleys that are now under Ice, showing Antarctica’s mountain ranges now under Ice. These have since been mapped by ice penetrating radar so that we do know that the Admiral Peri Reis map is a very accurate map, done before Antartica got its Ice Cap.

The Admiral Peri Reis map from the 1500’s is so accurate that the United States Navy corrected their Navy maps using this ancient map to do the corrections.

Logically the Antarctica Ice Cap cannot be more than 5000 years old, and may be much younger, in spite of Ice Cores giving really Great Ages of 100 thousand years for the Antartic. I do suggest that the Greenland Ice Cap is the same age as Antarctica, so is not a hundred thousand years but is 5000 years old at the most, and probaly only around a dozen centuries old at the most.

So now we have a problem. The Vikings saying their were large forests in the centre of Greenland, when we do have frozen forests under the Ice cap show these Ice Caps started to form only 1100 years ago, show that the modern dating of the Ice Cores is way out.

A few hundred years ago American or Canadian explorers set out to find the North West passage around the top of America, to shorten the distance they needed to sail for Eastern states to trade with the west. But Chinese junks had sailed that way for Centuries on trading voyages, sailing big multi masked, some with 9 masks, ships that were 500 feet long & 150 feet wide. In contrast Christopher Columbus’ Santa Maria, his largest ship when Columbus re-discovered America was only 90 foot long by 30 foot wide, the Spanish ships, and all European ships dwarfed by these ancient Chinese Ships.
Later the Chinese government banned all ships with more than one mask, so these very large Chinese ships were no longer built, and all those in existence were ordered destroyed by the Chinese Government in 1525AD, so that all Chinese Merchants were no longer allowed to trade with what the Chinese called “barbarian nations.” [Yet at that same time the European Nations called the Chinese “Barbarians.”] The Chinese had reached as far as East Africa, the Red Sea, and the Americas, etc.
But a thousand years ago Ice in the Artic Ocean finally stopped these ancient Chinese traders from keeping on using that northern route around the top of America that they had used for many centuries. That is consistent with climate change to a Mini Ice Age occurring at that time giving us the Antarctica & Greenland Ice caps. On display in Dubai is this pictured model of one of these large Chinese ships that traded with Arabia, the Americas and Africa, compared to Christopher Columbus’ small ship, the Santa Maria. Tomatoes came to the Western World from the Americas. In a very early Western Han Dynasty Chinese tomb, 200 years Before Christ, archeologists were very surprised to find Tomato Seeds. Chinese did not grow Tomatoes before Columbus founded America, or if they did they lost all their seed stock in a natural disaster, such as a large local flood and so ceased to grow them. These tomato seeds were still viable and 49 tomato plants were sprouted from these 2200 year old seeds. In the USA until 1820 Tomato was thought to be poisonous, so perhaps that is why the Chinese did not regularly grow them 2000 years ago [assuming all seed stock was not lost in a flood, etc.]

The only possible explanation for these Tomato Seeds in this 2200 year old Western Han Dynasty tomb is that the Chinese traded with the Americas, or else the Chinese traded for these seeds with another race such as the Phoenicians who had sailed to the Americas for the Bible’s King Solomon. In USA we find a rock engraved with the Ten Commandments in the very Ancient Phoenician script for instance could show evidence of other races, Irish, Viking, Roman galleon reaching the Americas/Hawaii during the First Century AD, Apostle Paul saying that the Gospel had been preached to every person under heaven, but we are getting away from the purpose of this post].

In Siberia and Alaska are many mammoth carcasses and bones, said to be from animals that died out more than 10,000 years ago, many frozen Mammoths found with undigested food in their stomach, and food still in their mouths between their teeth, that is these Mammoths were instantly killed by an extremely sudden very cold snap. But at least one of Mammoth skulls from Siberia has a neat very ancient bullet hole neatly through it, shot while this mammoth was still alive [early Siberian Hunters made homes/shelters from Mammoth bones covered with skins]. If these Mammoths died out 1100 years ago, in a sudden Mini Ice Age, we can easily explain the bullet hole [Chinese had gunpowder well before that time, and ancient Siberia did some trade with China.] If Mammoths died out 10,000 years or more ago as is claimed, we have an extremely big problem explaining away that bullet hole.

Some have suggested that this hole in the Mammoth skull is from a Cross Bow Bolt, not from a bullet, but Cross Bows were not invented until the Middle Ages, not that long before the first guns/bullets were invented. A long bow would not have the power to put an arrow through the thick bone of this Mammoth skull. So Siberia & Alaska Mammoths may have been around till about that time that the Vikings settled Greenland. Or else guns were invented by the Chinese or Siberian hunters 10000 years ago, and I personally cannot accept this. I do not insist on Mammoths dying out at this time, just point to it as possibly being another link in the chain of evidence that shows that Antarctica/Greenland’s Ice Caps are only 1100 years old at the most.

[clean32]

I am talking about these data:
http://cses.washington.edu/cig/figures/ipccar4co2big.gif

And we are not just talking CO2 here. Methane has 25 times the global warming potential of CO2 (averaged over 100 years).
http://cses.washington.edu/cig/figures/ipccar4ch4big.gif

And N2O has 298x the global warming potential of CO2 - averaged over 100 years:
http://cses.washington.edu/cig/figures/ipccar4n2obig.gif

OK are these Kosha? where are thay from ?? out of intrest

[vnx205]

Hi, spent all weekend preparing four posts... ....
... ... ... ... ..
... ... ... .... ..
... .was going to copy and paste my prepared Word Documents into the Evolution thread to give the Evidence of Polystrate trees to prove Evolution is wrong for all time.


Like you I was a little disappointed, but not at all surprised, when the "Evolution" thread was removed by the moderators.

If it had not been removed, you would have seen the evidence that I presented that showed quite clearly that the existence of polystrate trees does absolutely nothing to disprove evolution.

If you look at any one of the huge number of sites that explain how they come to exist, you will come to the same conclusion. Don't confine yourself to the single source that you appear to be relying on at the moment.

If you look objectively at the explanation for polystrate trees, you will wonder how you ever imagined that they provided any sort of proof whatsoever that "Evolution is wrong for all time."

[JohnF]

Most people concerned about Nuclear Radiation, Pollution, Global Warming, Rising Sea Levels, and housing in low areas disappearing under the rising seas, do not know that the Bible shows us that God knew about all this 2000 years ago. In the Bible Revelation 11:18 says:--

“And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that you should give reward unto your servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear your [God’s] name, small and great; and SHOULD DESTROY THEM WHICH DESTROY THE EARTH.”

See this was written more than 1900 years ago, 96AD, written in the days of battering rams, spears, bows & arrows being the latest military technology, and horse or donkey drawn cart being the very latest Land Rovers of that time period. There was no way they could destroy the earth back then when this was written. But today we pump the ocean & atmosphere full of toxic Chemical Waste, have the ability to kill every person on this planet with chemical or biological warfare, we give people in Iraq, etc., a shorter unhealthy lifespan by firing spent uranium shells at them spreading radioactive dust all over their country [talk about chemical warfare], and have the ability to blow this planet to smithereens by Nuclear Bombs, etc. So well into last century we finally had the ability to destroy the earth for the first time in its history. And God knew all about this well before hand, as the above Bible verse proves.

The Bible clearly describes Nuclear Bombs. For example the Bible, Joel 2:30-31 says:--

“And I [God] will show wonders in the heavens and in the earth, BLOOD, and FIRE, and pillars of smoke [Hebrew “PALM TREES of Smoke”]. 31The sun shall be turned into darkness [Nuclear Winter?], and the moon into blood, before the great and the terrible day of the LORD come.”

How else could a prophet of 2500 years ago have described a Nuclear Bomb’s blast except by calling it “Blood, fire, and Palm Trees of smoke.” While the Bible in Isaiah 25:4-5, 9 says:--

“For you [God] have been a strength to the poor, a strength to the needy in his distress, a refuge from the storm, a shadow from the heat, WHEN THE BLAST OF THE TERRIBLE ONES IS AS A STORM AGAINST THE WALL. 5You shalt bring down the noise of strangers, as the heat in a dry place; even the heat with the shadow of a cloud…. 9And it shall be said in that day, Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him, and he will save us: this is the LORD; we have waited for him, we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation.”

So God did know about Nuclear Bombs, and our ability to destroy this world Millenniums ago. Now to a Bible verse describing rising sea levels. This morning on the TV News it mentioned a nation who at the Copenhagen summit said if the globe warmed 2 degrees that their Island will disappear under the sea. Talking of very near the time of the Battle of Armageddon, the Bible in Revelation 6:12, 14 &16:20 says:--

“And I beheld when he had opened the sixth seal, and, lo, there was a great earthquake; and the sun became black as sackcloth of hair, and the moon became as blood;…. and every mountain and island were moved out of their places…. and every island fled away [disappeared], and the mountains were not found.”

So the Bible mentions Islands disappearing many Pacific Island Nations living just two meters above sea level on Islands of sand, which will disappear if the sea levels rise the predicted two meters. What about higher Rocky Islands like Hawaii & many others, e.g. some Solomon Islands. Many of these are volcanic Islands with actve or inactive volcanoes, and can blow of their tops at any time in a hugh volcanic eruption. For example this world has well over 6 billion people. The Mount Saint Helen’s Eruption in the1980’s put over a ton of dust & rubble [plus a real lot more CO2] into the atmosphere for each man, woman & child on the face of this planet, and also lowered the height of the mountain by 1700 feet, because of what it threw up into the air. It is often the case that the CO2 from just one volcanic eruption can put out more CO2 than all our human activity puts out in a whole year.

Along the east Coast of Australia is evidence the sea level was once 6 meters higher than it is now. I can take you to a fossilised beach some meters up the cliff to show you where the beach once was, the one I know about being near Ballina, but know there are many others on Australia’s East Coast. I was on a geology excursion collecting fossils 15 years ago, when the geologist told me the largest fossil of the day was sitting above us. None of us in the group saw that fossil till this old fossil was pointed out to us, then it was very plain to everyone. See we had been collecting fossil ferns, & leaves at Bexhill quarry, and we were looking for something much smaller than a whole fossil beach. So we should not be surprised if now the sea rises to its previous level, submerging Islands, etc.

Of course one must realise that all the Carbon dioxide, CO2, that we produce when we burn fossil fuels was once previously atmospheric CO2. For example coal is fossil trees that removed CO2 from the atmosphere, combined this CO2 with water during photosynthesis, giving of two molecules of Oxygen back into the atmosphere and producing cellulose--wood from the product of this photosynthesis.

But we do not need Global Warming to fulfil these incredible Bible Prophecies. Man can fulfil this prophecy other ways—e.g. by Nuclear War, and God could fulfil these End Time prophecies without even any man’s help.

31,000 scientists signed the Oregon Petition stating there is no evidence of Global Warming. A United Nations spokesperson says the Globe has not warmed at all in the last 10 years. But Australia &Britain want to introduce a EST tax to raise 60 billion more dollars each and every year. Who will be paying all this extra money? You and I, in raised prices on absolutely everything, not big businesses?

[windsock]

OK are these Kosha? where are thay from ?? out of intrest

Can't comment on kosha or otherwise but they come from the IPCC Working Group 1 Assessment Report 4 report accessible via this link (http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg1.htm).

[windsock]

...snip!... Who will be paying all this extra money? You and I, in raised prices on absolutely everything, not big businesses?

Pray for a wage increase... :angel:

[waz]

Does anyone here have their house set up on renewable power?

We are thinking of putting in Grid Connect Solar under the govt's interest free plan.

Any advice/pitfalls would surely be helpful.

Waz

[isuzurover]

Who cares about the information; at least you have the grammar right.

I am pleased (as I'm sure Ron would be) that there is still someone out there who knows that "data" is plural.

That was one of the comments I got back on the first journal paper I ever submitted many years ago...

[isuzurover]

Does anyone here have their house set up on renewable power?

We are thinking of putting in Grid Connect Solar under the govt's interest free plan.

Any advice/pitfalls would surely be helpful.

Waz

JDNSW has solar/wind power and is not connected to the grid. A colleague recently had a 1kW grid interactive solar system installed (with a 2kW inverter for later panel upgrades). She is very happy with it. She got in at the end of the previous rebate scheme, but this loan scheme sounds reasonable from what I have heard.

[Captain_Rightfoot]

I've found this site a bit interesting...

What's Up With That? (http://wattsupwiththat.com/)

[isuzurover]

...
Of course one must realise that all the Carbon dioxide, CO2, that we produce when we burn fossil fuels was once previously atmospheric CO2.
...


The atmosphere was once composed of 10% CO2, along with water vapour, hydrogen sulphide, methane and other chemicals. The fossil fuels we are burning represent deposits over long geological time scales, and we are putting them back into the atmosphere in a geological blink of an eye.



...

31,000 scientists signed the Oregon Petition stating there is no evidence of Global Warming. A United Nations spokesperson says the Globe has not warmed at all in the last 10 years. But Australia &Britain want to introduce a EST tax to raise 60 billion more dollars each and every year. Who will be paying all this extra money? You and I, in raised prices on absolutely everything, not big businesses?

Re these 31000 "scientists"

As of 2008, the petition's website states that "The current list of 31,072 petition signers includes 9,021 PhD; 6,961 MS; 2,240 MD and DVM; and 12,850 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science."[2]
So what it really means is that 31000 people (actually less as many duplicates have not been removed) in the US who hold a university degree of some description signed the petition.

[isuzurover]

Just catching up on news while I have been away:


Australia records hottest six months on record
December 9, 2009
Ads by Google
* Free Cemetery Search...

Obtain Cemetery & Death Recods OnAnyone! Takes Less Than 2 Secs...

Cemetery.DeathsRecords.com

Australia has recorded its hottest six months ever, and is well on track to have the second hottest year since records began, the Bureau of Meteorology says.

The World Meteorological Organisation's annual climate statement released today at Copenhagen found temperatures in 2009 reached 0.44 degrees above the 1961-1990 annual average.

"The decade 2000-2009 is very likely to be the warmest on record," WMO secretary general Michel Jarraud told reporters at the Copenhagen climate summit late on Tuesday, Australian time.

Australia was singled out for its wild weather in 2009.

"Australia had the third-warmest year on record with three exceptional heatwaves," Mr Jarraud said.

The WMO report said the heatwaves happened in January/February, when the hot weather contributed to the disastrous Victorian bushfires, in August and again in November.

The presence of El Nino conditions underway in the Pacific saw near-record rises in sea surface temperatures and most parts of Australia experienced an exceptionally mild winter.

Maximum temperatures were also well above the national average, with 3.2 degrees above normal, the largest ever recorded in any month.

Dr David Jones, head of climate analysis at the Bureau of Meteorology's national climate centre, said one of the biggest impacts in the last year had been the absence of cold, with a massive decline in sea ice in the Arctic.

"The last six months have been the warmest six months on record for Australia," Dr Jones told reporters in Melbourne today.

"We expect 2009 will be either the second warmest year on record for Australia or the third warmest."

He said the results were not surprising.

"Every decade's been getting warmer for the last 70 years.

"Clearly climate change hasn't stopped, global warming hasn't stopped..."

The outlook for the summer is consistent, Dr Jones said, with warm daytime conditions in northeast Australia forecast to continue.

[slt]

The Story of the ETS (or "Cap & Trade" in yank parlance)...

A good explanation on how it will "work"!


The Story of Cap and Trade (http://storyofstuff.com/capandtrade/)


.