Are we being conned about Global warming.

long term changes in climate have been identified from analysis of ice core drilling.

Have a read of Tim Flannery's book called Weather Makers from 2006. There is a lot of information and its difficult to take in. There are long lags between carbon levels and reactions. There is potential for multiplier effects. For example there's more methane trapped under ice caps than known natural gas reserves. Methane is something like 60 times more effective as a green house gase than CO2. If the ice caps melt the methane will be released.

Changes by Australians in their use of carbon emitting fuel wont stop changing climate if no one else changes. However, even china is taking steps to move away from coal. They are building more nuclear power stations than anyone. Americans and Australians are big emitters per head of population compared to the rest of the world. Ultimately emmissions will probably be capped sometime in the future and each country will be given its share based on population (and other factors). We should get used to using less energy.

History is packed with examples of populations disappearing because human impact on environment eg Easter Island, populations of Nth American indians. They disappeared because they wouldn't (eg in denial) or couldn't change (lack of know how). A frequent feature in the lead up to resource collapse is conflict over fewer resources and because neighbouring populations having a negative impact on survival. The future seems to depend on finding better food production methods and alternative energy, and avoiding do things having a negative impact on neighbours (which in climate change terms is the whole world).

Kermet the frog was right all those years ago. It isn't easy being green.

I'm only convinced that the weather is changing, but I feel that there are far too many persons with vested interests involved in the debate as to whether it has been bought about by man's intervention.

The very fact that the scientific community is so divided, doesn't give me any confidence in their findings either.

Whether climate change is caused by humans or not is hard to say, but it is certainly being used by some sectors of our society to bully others into doing what they want.

Willem

So tell me, who else here remembers the magical Y2k bug? Thousands of people (me included) spent the night at work waiting for all of the computer systems to melt.

Didn't happen, did it? That "rumor" cost industry millions of $$$, and made the computer companies & software vendors the same millions.

My point is this: Enough people were convinced that there was going to be a global computer meltdown at 23:59:59 on Dec 31, 1999. It didn't happen. Sure, some computer based systems needed to be updated, but at the worst, they would have reset their internal dates to 1900.

The same thing is happening here (IMHO). Convince enough people of something, and then watch the story take off. The government loves the populist vote. Climate change is the popular "cause" at the moment, so it is only natural that the governments around the world will be seen to "be doing something" to arrest this climate change. In short: cater to the vocal minority.

Humans can have an impact on the earth as we know it, however, as has already been stated, we do not have enough data one way or the other, to make an educated, scientific, and non-judgmental analysis. For every expert for climate change, there is always another expert against it.

My personal opinion? Dunno if it is real or not. But I do know that any government that FORCES me to pay for something, based entirely on a select number of experts opinion, and 1 ex-heavy metal rock singer, is going to be a very sorry government indeed.

More research is needed, and that is going to take a lot longer than I have left on this earth.

And the next person that says the drought & the drying up of the River Murray is caused by climate change, is going to be used as a wheel chock for my Discovery. This is a natural cycle. Just take a trip to Swan Hill and look at the height of the wharfs along the river. The river flooded, and the river dried up. Humans have taken too much water from the river for their own greedy needs, and then built dams and barrages so they can take even more water.

Open the river up, and let it act like it did 150 years ago.




Now, I am going to have a Bex & a lay down.

For the last 200+ years man has added to the the pollution of the air we all breathe and the water we all need to survive, where do you think all of that pollution goes to, whether man-made or not. Every single particle, atom, microbe, gas, whatever produced by man since day 1, or by natural causes is still in existence, it is still in the atmosphere, soil and water, it may change from one thing to another, BUT it is still here on earth. There has to be a carrying capacity for all this ****, what happens when the earth's carrying capacity is exceeded.
The earth's forests are being decimated which diminishes it's capacity to turn Co2 into Oxygen, the earths oceans are being polluted at an alarming rate, what if that affects it's capability to produce oxygen. There has got to be a cut off point, so burying your heads in the sand and saying nothing we can do will help is crap, Regards Frank.

If we are certain that it is human activity that is causing global warming then the guy in this thread has the only real solution - we have to stop breeding!

Who's going first??:(

Carbon is the fourth most abundant element in the universe by mass after hydrogen, helium, and oxygen. It is present in all known lifeforms, and in the human body carbon is the second most abundant element by mass. Deal with it.

Climate changes. Always has, always will. Deal with it.

Carbon Polution Reduction Scheme is a Carbon Tax. It has nothing to do with much other than raising money based on the first point listed above.

Good old fashioned Polution and Over Population are too sensitive and hard to deal with. Carbon polution sounds sexy and is easier to sell.

Carbon Polution and Climate Change is now every big business. It makes a lot of money for a lot of people out of a lot of hot air.

People thrive on bad news. It sells big time!

The Australian Federal Government is determined to lead the world in this because it is a vote winner locally and with the UN. The Australian Federal Government is determined to become part of the UN. There is a strong rumour that Mr KRudd wants to be the first Australian Scretary General of the UN.

Kind of makes you think!!

Regards,
Greg

On this argument that whatever Australia does to reduce emissions, it will make little difference to the overall carbon levels, therefore we shouldn't change until the big countries do.

Ok think of it this way : if you were out camping with your family and a big group of 100 down a bit are all defecating in the creek. Would you also do the same because, after all, your little bit extra won't make much difference ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by idletorque

Carbon is the fourth most abundant element in the universe by mass after hydrogen, helium, and oxygen. It is present in all known lifeforms, and in the human body carbon is the second most abundant element by mass. Deal with it.

Climate changes. Always has, always will. Deal with it.

Carbon Polution Reduction Scheme is a Carbon Tax. It has nothing to do with much other than raising money based on the first point listed above.

Good old fashioned Polution and Over Population are too sensitive and hard to deal with. Carbon polution sounds sexy and is easier to sell.

Carbon Polution and Climate Change is now every big business. It makes a lot of money for a lot of people out of a lot of hot air.

People thrive on bad news. It sells big time!

The Australian Federal Government is determined to lead the world in this because it is a vote winner locally and with the UN. The Australian Federal Government is determined to become part of the UN. There is a strong rumour that Mr KRudd wants to be the first Australian Scretary General of the UN.

Kind of makes you think!!

Regards,
Greg

---

K. Rudd would be the 2nd Australian, Regards Frank.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ozzirt

I'm only convinced that the weather is changing, but I feel that there are far too many persons with vested interests involved in the debate as to whether it has been bought about by man's intervention.

The very fact that the scientific community is so divided, doesn't give me any confidence in their findings either.

---

That is what it says in the Vid i posted. That there is a massive industry and loads of people employed in the green industry . And to prove it as rubish would put millions at of work . After all , all goverments have a green sections along with locaol goverments , news papers, collages Uni's . There is a whole green industry makeing millions out of pepole being green .