Thread: Are we being conned about Global warming.

you lot have ALL got it wrong if we have rooted the planet its all too late and we will fry on this little old continent of ours......

If it is all hog wash i am getting my defender winterised and getting a lift icelandic spec and lifes good....

basically we will run out of fossil fuel soon enough, then governments will have to stop dithering and enforce the use of alternative power sources (hopefully the sun has not been eclipsed by the pollution)
this in turn will alter the conditions created by carbon release it'll probably start showing a result in a couple of hundred years so our kids will be rooted but if the human race carries on our great great grand kids might be on a winner...
unless governments stop being so **** about this issue and have a united definative resolve to correct past actions, if indeed the industrial pollutants are the main cause nothing will be achieved and we will be stuffed.

Originally Posted by rmp

Re the Y2K bug; that was real, at least in many situations. Of course, with no problem at the end nobody believes you. You're only a hero for fighting a fire, not preventing it.

I agree! A lot of people thought that the Y2K bug was a non-issue. It was only so because of the great effort and expenditure of vulnerable sectors to upgrade their equipment in good time. It WAS a worthy issue to be concerned about.

It is similar with climate change, except that there is not such a certainty about the effect of human activity. It is almost certainly only one of a great many factors.

Better then to work towards reducing carbon emissions on the basis of sustainability. We really NEED to develop new fuels before we run out of oil, and we also need to develop power generation without relying to a large extent on coal, which, along with gas, will eventually run out.

Climate change is only incidental really, in my opinion.

Cheers,

Lionel

Originally Posted by Lionel

..........
Better then to work towards reducing carbon emissions on the basis of sustainability. We really NEED to develop new fuels before we run out of oil, and we also need to develop power generation without relying to a large extent on coal, which, along with gas, will eventually run out.

Climate change is only incidental really, in my opinion.

Cheers,

Lionel

I agree with this in general, although it needs to be pointed out that as far as Australia is concerned, coal reserves stretch many centuries into the future.

But there is not going to be any concerted effort to develop replacements without artificially making coal much more expensive - and this has the effect of making just about everything else more expensive, which is why it is politically unpalatable.

John

Originally Posted by vnx205

On the contrary; if you disagree, you can almost be guaranteed a disproportionate amount of media time and space to air your views.

I don't know whether we are being conned about global warming, but we are unquestionably being conned about the amount of dissent amongst the scientific community.

The amount of media attention given to dissenting views is out of all proportion to the number of scientists who hold those views and the significance of their evidence.

One good example of that imbalance is "The Great Global Warming Swindle" swindle.

Most of us saw that TV program by Martin Durkin.

How many people saw this complaint by Carl Wunsch, Professor of Physical Oceanography, Massachusetts Institute of Technology about the way his comments were misrepresented on Durkin's program?

A Great Global Warming Swindle | NowPublic News Coverage

Wunsch say things like," Never before, however, have I had
an experience like this one. My appearance in the "Global Warming
Swindle" is deeply embarrassing, and my professional reputation
has been damaged. I was duped---an uncomfortable position in which to be.

At a minimum, I ask that the film should never be seen again publicly
with my participation included. Channel 4 surely owes an apology to
its viewers, and perhaps WAGTV owes something to Channel 4. I will be
taking advice as to whether I should proceed to make some more formal protest."

He give just a couple of examples out of many that he could have chosen, of how his information was misused.

He is not the only scientist who has lodged a complaint about how his or her comments were misused to present an entirely false impression of his or her position on the subject.

Durkin's program has had worldwide exposure. The fact that he deliberately misrepresented the views of several of the world's leading scientists is little known outside the academic world.

The media fall over themselves to air the views of people like Durkin but ignore the complaints of people whose views he has misrepresented.

The general public is being given the impression that there are a large number of eminent scientists who have convincing proof that global warming is not happening or is not affected by human activity.

That impression is quite false. There are certainly some scientists who see some problems with the model being presented by the overwhelming majority of the scientific community.

The media who, like some members of the public, prefer to see things in oversimplified, black and white terms choose to present a minor criticism as a complete condemnation.

We are being conned about the extent of dissent and about the balance of evidence.

Very good points.

Also look at Prof. Ian Plimer. He has been printing money since he started publishing his books.

The argument that climate change skeptics aren't given airtime is flawed.

It should be noted that most of the skeptics have vested interests in disproving climate change.

HOWEVER - regardless of whether we believe in human induced global warming or not, the fact remains that the global population is expanding rapidly, and consuming finite resources at an ever increasing rate. Unless we start reducing our dependence on these finite resources, future generations will be in dire straits.

I find the arguments that "whatever Australia does will make no difference" flawed on a number of levels. Sure, our individual emissions may be insignificant NOW, but what about in the future when our population increases??? Depending on what is included in the measure, Australia is either worst or in the top 3 in terms of CO2e emissions per capita (and I am just using CO2e as a convenient measure. We are also pretty bad on NOx and SOx etc - which are 100% proven to cause acid rain and photochemical smog etc...)

Rather than sitting on our hands and doing nothing, we should be at the forefront of developing new technoplogies to utilise sustainable energy/resources. Some of the best solar and renewables technologies have been developed by Australians, who were forced offshore to get development funding. Now other countries are making money we could have.

Look at companies like Norsk Hydro, Enercon and REpower. They are making huge amounts of money selling renewables technology, at a time when carmakers and oil companies are doing it tough. There is no reason Australian companies couldn't be doing it too.

Originally Posted by isuzurover

.......
I find the arguments that "whatever Australia does will make no difference" flawed on a number of levels. Sure, our individual emissions may be insignificant NOW, but what about in the future when our population increases??? Depending on what is included in the measure, Australia is either worst or in the top 3 in terms of CO2e emissions per capita (and I am just using CO2e as a convenient measure. We are also pretty bad on NOx and SOx etc - which are 100% proven to cause acid rain and photochemical smog etc...)..........

As I commented earlier - whatever Australia does will make no difference to global warming. And Australia's population is almost certain never to be high enough for it to make a difference, as we are water limited. The insistence on per capita figures is flawed - it is exactly the same as insisting that fuel consumption is the important thing for vehicle emissions when the amount of driving done is even more important. But as far as society's overall emissions go, the most important factor is population growth - and Australia does not look good here!

Australia needs to reduce its reliance on carbon fuels, but not for the reasons generally touted - it will not affect global warming. As you say, there are other reasons for this, although not, I think, the ones you mention. Coal mining is messy and dangerous, and we would be better off minimising it is one reason, and eventually Australia will probably have to enter into international agreements to limit it.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the only way Australia can lead in technology is either by massive subsidies or by heavily penalising carbon intensive energy sources, or some combination of the two. Either way means a substantial drop in living standards for most Australians, and quite frankly, I can't see any government doing this in the foreseeable future.

In my view a better approach than the emission trading scheme planned - which is highly artificial and an open invitation to rorts of all kinds - would be to gradually move the basis of taxation to carbon emissions rather than goods and services and income. This would have the advantage of reducing non-energy taxation as the cost of energy rises, although since free lunches are in short supply, there would still be a lot of hardship.

John

Originally Posted by JDNSW

As I commented earlier - whatever Australia does will make no difference to global warming. And Australia's population is almost certain never to be high enough for it to make a difference, as we are water limited. The insistence on per capita figures is flawed - it is exactly the same as insisting that fuel consumption is the important thing for vehicle emissions when the amount of driving done is even more important. But as far as society's overall emissions go, the most important factor is population growth - and Australia does not look good here!

Australia needs to reduce its reliance on carbon fuels, but not for the reasons generally touted - it will not affect global warming. As you say, there are other reasons for this, although not, I think, the ones you mention. Coal mining is messy and dangerous, and we would be better off minimising it is one reason, and eventually Australia will probably have to enter into international agreements to limit it.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the only way Australia can lead in technology is either by massive subsidies or by heavily penalising carbon intensive energy sources, or some combination of the two. Either way means a substantial drop in living standards for most Australians, and quite frankly, I can't see any government doing this in the foreseeable future.

In my view a better approach than the emission trading scheme planned - which is highly artificial and an open invitation to rorts of all kinds - would be to gradually move the basis of taxation to carbon emissions rather than goods and services and income. This would have the advantage of reducing non-energy taxation as the cost of energy rises, although since free lunches are in short supply, there would still be a lot of hardship.

John

It is rather hypocritical to say to other countries: you should do something about your emissions, but we don'ty have to.

My point about technology was more related to the pathetic lack of (govt and industry) R&D expenditure compared to other countries. Investing in renewable energy R&D hasn't hurt other countries, quite the opposite.

Wind power is now reaching price parity (or better!) with nuclear and clean coal (or even coal with decent scrubbers which we don't have yet). It has been proven that a distributed wind generator grid can reliably provide 60% power. Perth is the 3rd windiest city in the southern hemisphere. Due to a lack of early R&D, we are buying all our wind generators from Germany.

"It should be noted that most of the skeptics have vested interests in disproving climate change. "

And of course there are no vested interests involved in climate doomsaying and the creation of a whole new level of bureacracy.

Cutting to what I dislike about the whole thing, and it's not acknowledging the anthropomorphic effects on climate, nor is it acknowledging that it is from the wealthier first world economies that the technology to increase sustainability. Afterall some of the arguement is about efficient use of inputs when creating outputs, what's not to like?.... it's just that everytime I look even slightly behind the surface of this debate I find its the same people trying to reduce my rights through government interference that I've always put up with. And I trust these people about as far as I could pee.

Sooner or later it boils down to one thing, nobody is allowed to make 5c and spend it on what they want, and nobody is allowed have 5c more than the other guy and nobody is allowed to have parents who had 5c more than the other guy did. It's always been about that and it always will be. They must be resisted, because that path leads one way.

I pay around half my meagre salary in taxes and if you really want to introduce a carbon tax, then knock yourself out but I'm hardly surprised that you're not going to reduce my taxes in other areas. So I am against any new tax for any reason.

Originally Posted by isuzurover

It is rather hypocritical to say to other countries: you should do something about your emissions, but we don'ty have to.
.........

I think you misunderstand my point. The only way that Australia can have any effect on total global emissions is to use Australia's emissions reduction as a bargaining tool in international negotiations.

This is not what is proposed and talked about. All I hear is that we must reduce our emissions to save the planet, nothing about using possible reductions as a bargaining tool. And as far as I am concerned, if the major emitters reduce their emissions we need to do so as well. But reducing ours without the major emitters doing so will only export jobs and reduce Australia's ability to deal with global warming.

The problem of lack of R&D is not confined to the renewable energy market, but is applies right across all areas of technology. There are several basic reasons for this. The obvious one is that Australia has a very small market for just about everything, and almost every emerging technology is very dependent on a domestic market to support it. The high interest rate policies that have seen Australia with far higher interest rates than any of our competitors for the last thirty years ensure that all businesses have to take a very short term view - an attitude which is obviously inimical to R&D of any kind (and the major shareholders give or withdraw their support purely on last quarter's bottom line!). Largely because of the Australian tax system, any risk taking by business is discouraged, again, very anti R&D. And finally, and perhaps least important, government finance of R&D has been falling in real terms for at least thirty years under governments of all flavours.

Of course a specific problem with wind power is the NIMBY problem - very much alive and well in NSW, I don't know about WA.

John