Thread: Are we being conned about Global Warming part 2

I'm a cynical bugger when it come to climate change. I can't get over the feeling the debate has been hijacked, and the media are the main culprit. It is so fashionable to go 'green', and anyone disenting gets a public put down. I would like to see less emotional arguement, and more facts. ie. What is the real cost ( manufacturing to eventual disposal - recycling ) of the so called Hybrids. Compare that to a modern fuel efficient conventional vehicle. ......and if you want another one..how much does it cost to manufacture and instal a wind tower. Not looking forward to the day when we have electric 4WD's.

Whilst I haven't got the patience to sit and read all that at this time of day, It would seem that maybe (just maybe) some politicians are starting to think about it, rather than get caught up in emotions. I do see reducing emissions as a good thing, but there needs to be some thought and scientific basis, rather than going to extremes (like threatening the boss of a power plant and his family)

You think things are expensive now? You think your jobs are safe now?

Wait untill this climate change legislation passes... Lets all hope that it doesn't

Originally Posted by ADMIRAL

What is the real cost ( manufacturing to eventual disposal - recycling ) of the so called Hybrids. Compare that to a modern fuel efficient conventional vehicle. .

Try this........it's very detailed so it's long winded.

Dust to Dust vehicle carbon footprint analysis (CLICK HERE )

On the topic of overall cost, I heard recently that jumbo jets are qute effective as far as cost per person, by the time you add in the cost of infrastructure, ie, cars/trucks/buses need roads, trains need rails, whereas planes need relatively small sections of tarmac to land and take-off.

Originally Posted by moose

On the topic of overall cost, I heard recently that jumbo jets are qute effective as far as cost per person, by the time you add in the cost of infrastructure, ie, cars/trucks/buses need roads, trains need rails, whereas planes need relatively small sections of tarmac to land and take-off.

I guess that all depends from where it is coming the info.
If you read THIS then it is a different point of view.

At the end of the day any sacrifice in income or standard of living it is not popular so there are a lot of politicians that are not prepared to risk their position because the risk of something that only is going to affect future generations.

I as a grandfather and concern for their future and their children, I take this issue very serious and believe on the facts, we are loosing a lot on "components" in the ecosystem due to global warming and climate change and not body can deny this.

Cheers

Originally Posted by ivery819

A few weeks ago member 'drivesafe ' asked the question "are we being conned about Global Warming ? "
Since then Senator Steve Fielding has had the opportunity to more closely examine the issues involved. He recently had a meeting with Senator Wong at which he put several relevant questions.
Senator Fielding holds a crucial vote on the proposed Emissions Trading Legislation. Fielding and four independent scientists faced the Minister for the Climate Change and Water, Penny Wong, The Chief Scientist, Penny Sackett, and Professor Will Steffan, director of the Climate Change Institute at the Australian National University.

Click here to read what happened from an eye witness

It's unlikely that any of this will be in the mainstream media.

Once again this claim about only the climate change argument getting media coverage while the skeptics are silenced is not born out by the facts.

The only newspaper coverage I have seen was written by a supporter of Fielding.

The article in the link is obviously written by a biased witness, so needs to to be read with some skepticism.

The emotive language used is a bit of a giveaway. The climate change scientists are described as "alarmist" and their arguments as"worthless" "rubbish". While Fielding apparently asked "sensible questions".

That may not make the account wrong, but it certainly makes it suspect.

I think it is a very subjective topic. Obviously with some of the crap we are putting into the air there has to be some conequence and effect.
Wether it is to the exetent some would like us to believe is debatable.
I honestly think if there is a cleaner viable alternative, it should be taken an become standard practice.
A poor example of this is hybrid or green cars. While they have their merits and uses they are not practical for the majority.
Solar tecnologies should be common place in countries like Australia and other high sun exposed areas but are not, I reckon all houses built in Australia should have to have at last 1kw of solar power as mandatory. If there was high volume use cost should theoretically come down.
As I said I dont think there is total transperancy in the debate, but sticking our heads in the sand and ignoring cleaner tecnologies is not the answer either.