Finally !! Proof of Global Warming

LOL and had your lot fallen out of the trees by then ????

Regards

You mongrel.

Sweating here, and its 10pm.

Isn't it?

bit that im on is

bit that im on is ????

On the moonshine again Davoe......lol.


Cheers.......Lionel.

my spirit level says it is

You are right Greg. The climate has changed since the ice melted and the sea rose, cutting off the visits to relatives between Tasmanian and mainland indiginees. That isn't considered global warming though. No need to do a search.

Energy is constant, across a closed system. Co2 is created. The problem with Co2 is that the Earth created huge amounts of the stuff over a very long time period and it was locked up in fossil fuel reserves that took vast amounts of time to build up. We are releasing this through our burning of fossil fuels at a rate that is unprecedented in history. Yes, climate has varied over the ages, but there has never been a release of stored energy remotely like what we are currently doing. That's why the coal industry id trying to convince us that it might be possible to find a way to lock Co2 emissions from coal generators up again and store them underground. While it is true that other factors influence global warming, increasing C02 levels will also increase warming due to the 'greenhouse effect". The current rates of global warming are consistent with the increase of Co2 in the atmosphere and the modelling showing the relationship between the two.
Max/min temperatures for any year at a few places on the globes surface are meaningless in inferring anything in this discussion. The only thing that counts is the overall temperature movement of the global system. And that has been consistently up, in line with the predictions. Further, non of the other factors that we know resulted in major climate change in previous time periods has been present over the current period. In fact, the biggest error in the predictions is that it is happening faster than originally predicted, probably because we are increasing emissions faster than the original predictions so the modelling connecting temp. co2 remains consistent.

Pop,

I find it hard to follow your arguement.

Plant matter is is largerly carbon. Over millions of years some of this plant matter rotted and formed oil and coal (again carbon) When we burn this it creates CO2.

A large protion of the carbon in fossill fuels, which has been produced and stored over millions of years, has been released as CO2 over the last 150 years.

Plants absorb this carbon, however as you said, large tracts of forests are being destroyed. This is being done because trees in the ground have little if any value to the landholders.

Are you suggesting that we should implement a system which recognises the value of growing trees. Then, these landholders could get some compensation for helping the rest of the world dealing with their polution?

Another interesting point is that it is getting hotter on mars, yes MARS the planet. must be some fancy exhaust gas to reach that far.

read for yourself http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

Can you quote your source for those claims please Barnesy?

IPCC (their findings are correlated by CSIRO, NASA, BOM etc etc etc.)
How many of the general public have actually read an IPCC report? I would think very few.

It is an extremely complex issue and if people are relying on the commercial media for their information then it's no wonder there is so much confusion and misunderstanding.

If you have a problem with your heart you go to a heart specialist. If there is a problem with the atmosphere you go to an atmospheric specialist, namely the IPCC.

Would you listen to a brain surgeon for advice on your heart? No you wouldn't. None of these denialist scientists who are selling tickets to shows to spurt out how much they disagree with the mainstream are atmospheric specialists.

Barnesy,
Do some research and you will see the IPCC has been manipulating data for a long time in order to get the results they want.

ps. The last decade has actually shown a downward trend in global temperatures.

Mogul, sorry, that just isn't so. Some aspects of IPCC data were loosely compiled and took sources that had not been checked. The problem is that this isn't just one branch of science. The IPCC tried to tie together many different areas from many different disciplines and some, a very small "some" compared to the overall picture were inaccurate. Take the recently discussed stuff on glaciers. The date for the disappearance of glaciers that was given in one (only one of many) reports within the overall IPCC data, was hopelessly wrong. This has been much trumpeted by those who fervently hope the data is wrong. This has been interpreted by the media (especially The Australian) as meaning glaciers aren't retreating. But they are. The rest of the IPCC data on them still stands untouched and they are certainly retreating, but not as fast as to have disappeared by 2035. The overwhelming thrust of the IPCC data still stands. And no, the last decade has not shown a downward trend in global temperatures. This furphy is a claim made by Ian Plimer and it has been well and truely and publically contradicted by the climate department of his own university, Adelaide

The last 3 decades may have shown an increase of global temperatures and these 3 decades "may" have been the hottest in the last 150 or 250 or 1050 years. How long has the Earth been in existence in its present form taken on a decade by decade or century by century time frame? As far as I can tell from reading many articles on the research of our history from a climate model perspective......
Never........ the Earth and most probably every celestial body that exists or existed including stars are constantly changing, some over billions of years, some a lot less. However all change over time. To take a time frame of 150 years and compare our knowledge of that to the millions of years our planet has existed in its constantly evolving state is to my mind arrant nonsense. As others have already said it has become politically popular to espouse "climate change" and use it to push whatever hidden agenda suits any particular group for their own purposes and the good Lord forbid anyone having the temerity to question their pseudo scientific evidence.

But hey everyone is entitled to a point of view as long as it doesn't conflict with our own....................(;-))

Cheers Pop

I wish it was politically popular to espouse climate change. As I said in another of these posts, in fact our politicians seem to be desperate to say they are doing something, and then do almost nothing. The emissions trading scheme is laughably inadequate and we couldn't even get the world's politicians to agree to take that very limited action.
You need to do some more work on this. Those concerned about climate change totally agree that climate on this (and other) worlds has always been in a state of change. There are a number of factors however that make what is happening at the moment look very different to previous changes. In particular, the speed at which it is happening, in geological terms, can only be compared to "impact events" in previous geological periods. And impact events have resulted in massive changes to life on the planet.
Pop, nothing would make me happier than for the climate change predictions to turn out to be all wrong because the outlook for our next couple of generations is looking very bleak. But you can only go with the evidence and the evidence at the moment supports climate change and man made climate change at that. Wishing it was otherwise, doesn't make it so. Work your way through "Poles Apart" and see if you want to rethink what you have said.
PS, most of the argument for climate change is in peer reviewed journals. Very little of the "anti" case has come from peer reviiews. This doesn't make the peer reviewed stuff necessarily right, but I know which group I regards as scientific and which as "pseudo" (to use your term.)

We take action now and find out later that global climate change is not happening and what have we lost ? Some money.

We don't take action and we find out that it is a real threat what have we lost ?

A lot of lives money and the environment we live in.

The global warming skeptics remind me of those who said they could negotiate a peace with Hitler so there was no need to build up a new and stronger defence service or to take strong expensive and decisive action .

They made a mistake and millions of people lost their lives.

If they had taken action and averted WW2 people would be saying "Oh why did they have to spend all that money? We knew Hitler would never invade Poland or France ! It was just a huge conspiracy."

The problem with this arguement is that it has been stolen by people who try to make money out of it (on both sides). If you want to know some of the truth then do some research on those who give you this information and who is paying for it. But this takes time, and people are lazy. It is far easier to allign yourself with the side that sits well with your lifestyle and your political persuasion.

So please, do your research or stay out of the debate.

R.

p.s. John (vic)- You are shooting blanks. It has been widely accepted by BOTH SIDES that the earth is warming. The debate is about its cause.

Spot on Rob. Whenever I come across new "authorities" on either side of the debate, I do a fast Google on them to find out what other causes they are associated with or what they have published or what sites they may give links to. It is interesting the number of anti warmers who have connections with organizations that are opposed to the United Nations (on the grounds of being anti world government, which often links to fear of being outvoted by 'colored nations". Also some surprising links with anti evolution groups. Ian Plimer is a noteable exception He has a background of self promotion and hopping onto bandwagons, but is strongly pro evolution.

Re your PS to John, again spot on. John seems to have trouble writing anything without frothing at the mouth about Rudd and seems to not realize that Rudd's emission trading scheme is virtually identical with Howards proposals, as supported by Turnbull (and also Abbot until recently).

I would dispute that anything about this debate is widely accepted.

Its not called a debate for nothing and all points continue to be debated because the opinions are opposed and the science is unproven and can't be supported.

Yes it's a debate for the sake of a debate, done by those who are uneducated on the subject, making the it a rather pointless excersise.

It's a bit like arguing the earth is not flat because it has hills.

I should have added that even you blokes on the Pro lobby are a laughing stock as you attack and dispute constantly each others theories and than every so often quickly form an alliance to gang up on the Climate sceptics who dare to question.

My position is simple, question anything the government of the day says and does particularly if can't be proven and its associated with a tax that will disadvantage Australians in a world market.
And I would ask you to show where I have claimed or suggested that the Liberal policy was any better.

Nobody has been able to answer a question that was posed sometime back in previous threads.

Why was Rudd so intent on getting his ETS through BEFORE Copenhagen?

What was the rush that Australia had to have such a scheme when no one else would have one?

John,

Don't be so gullible. People are using you and you don't see it.

Its not called a debate for nothing and all points continue to be debated because the opinions are opposed and the science is unproven and can't be supported.
===================================

See that is the main basis of the problem.

There is well documented well researched and accepted scientific evidence to support the theory of man made climate change.

but by ignoring this or by deliberately misrepresenting the evidence the lobby against this theory has managed to get much popular support.

It is very hard to sell people ideas that are set 20 to 30 years in the future and that are going to cost money now.

it is very easy to scare and frighten people into believing anything.

So the skeptics have a much easier task disrupting than science has in convincing people.

Rudd wanted the ETS before Copenhagen to set an example for the rest of the world, so other countries would be more willing to embrace the changes.

As it was the ETS was scuttled and the Copenhagen conference was undermined by China India and Big Business lobby groups.

Thanks for the put down, it really adds credibility to your position.

Just shows how the Pro Lobby start the personal attacks when they can't support there position and answer the simple questions.

Sorry can you point out where I made a personal attack on you please.

Can you post the scientific peer reviewed evidence that disproves the theory of man made global warming ?

If there is no good scientific evidence disproving a theory and good science and research based evidence supporting that theory I do not see how you can say both sides have equal credibility.

I can claim I know an invisible pink unicorn inhabits and equally invisible celestial teapot but that does not make it a scientific fact !


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

Obviously directed at Rob.
Check the time stamps Doug we both replied at the same time.

John, why did you think I was pro lobby. Whatever that means. As for your questions, again do some research. The (as you call them) pro lobby group are using people like you as an example into why the sceptics should be ignored. (ie shooting blanks)
R.

John, the reason given for the point you raised is exactly as you have already been answered. You may not agree with K R , but it is what he said and it seems entirely likely that he wanted to be seen as a leader on the world stage on this issue - and it didn't come off. In the interests of objectivity, you might at least in your attacks on KR, have pointed oiut that J Howard had proposed virtually the same policy before the last election.
I am not having a go at you here, but do you really understand how the science process and the concept of "proof" in science works? Do you understand what peer reviewing is all about and how it happens and the difference between that and Ian Pliimers and Al Gore's writing (neither of which are peer reviewed).
Using 'proof" in the sense that you seem to be using it, it is impossible to prove that the sun will rise tomorrow, but I doubt that you therefore think it is just a matter of debate and one person's opinion is as good as anothers.
In Science, you go with the balance of probabilities on the evidence you have. And therefore, while we can't "prove" it, we will both probably accept that the sun will rise tomorrow. The balance of probabilities on the evidence re climate warming well and truely favours the pro case. Sure, the case is not as strong as it is for believing that the sun will rise tomorrow, but it is well and truely strong enough to suggest that we are foolish in the extreme to disregard it.
Intelligence after all is defined as the ability to see patterns, then make forecasts and take actions based on those patterns.

Spot on.

The theory is that the sun will rise tomorow because the earth rotates aound its axis every 24 hours. If the sun doesn't rise tomorrow (ie at the north pole) it deosn't mean that the theory is wrong.

R.

Not only was it a case of he wanted to be seen as a "world leader" he also knew that no other country would bring in or support such a scheme and that would mean his credibility on this matter was shot.

Australians are now seeing it as it really was, his last ditch chance to bring in a new tax for no real effect on his climate change argument.

Obviously directed at Rob.
Check the time stamps Doug we both replied at the same time.
==========================

no problem

The format of long discussions here is difficult to follow sometimes :-(


==========================

It can be difficult to understand the concept of theories and peer review of them.

It is tied to the language of science that has been notorious for not communicating well in the past.

Sadly with people now sending death threats to scientists who publish research that supports climate change theories there is much less incentive for scientists to speak out publicly about about what new evidence they have found.

Australians are now seeing it as it really was, his last ditch chance to bring in a new tax for no real effect on his climate change argument.

==================================

Can you please explain to me the logic behind your thinking here ?

Why would a popularly elected PM and government WANT to bring in a new and unpopular tax ? Especially one that in a few years as you say would not do anything ?

rudd has just spent billions on stimulating the economy and any new tax is going to suppress that stimulus. He is facing an election, most Australians want action on climate change, I just don't understand how you think he wants to bring in an unpopular tax just for the hell of it?

Do you think he just decided "oh A new tax would be a great idea, it may lose me the next election but what the hell I will try and bring one in"

Why not just say to people " there is a new tax, we are the government you will pay up" ?

The ETS was an attempt to set an example that now was the time to start taking serious actions.

John, whatever else it was, the tweedledum and tweedledee ets schemes of Rudd and Howard are not (were not) taxes. And just because Tony kept repeating big fat tax over and over in the (apparently succesful) hope that people would think it was a tax, doesn't make it a tax either. A tax raises government revenue. This was a trading scheme. CO2 emitters would have to pay according to the amount they emitted (and even this was a laugh because of the number of loopholes to protect the really big emitters that had been built in). The money raised would be invested in various schemes such as reafforestation that would soak up CO2 and counterbalance the emissions. I've said elsewhere why I don't think it is a very good idea, but a tax it aint. When Don Watson does his next edition of "weasel words" I think he could do a whole chapter on how the public were sold the idea that this was a tax.

Mfewster,

The Rudd plan, if passed into legislation requred the Nation, by law, to reduce its emissions by X percent.

However, sectors of industry, like coal, were given exemptions.

However again, it would still be LAW to reduce by that stated percentage. So another sector would be targetted. Now which sector is sitting there, defenceless, unable to put up any resistance?

Why us mums and dads of course. You included.

So up goes the tarriffs on every form of household energy consumption until we stop using it.

And you can't see that as a TAX?

What was obvious was that he did a very good job on beating up the scare campaign on climate change pre election and Australians believed him.
Lets sign Kyoto as that will be seen to be green. (seems to have made bugger all difference to me)

He sold the promise that Aussies would not be any worse off or disadvantaged under his scheme and conveniently left of the small point about Aussie business and jobs departing for countries which would not disadvantage them in the same way.
He also left of the case that has now come to light that the average Aussie household under his scheme would now be better than a thousand bucks a year directly worse off to list but two small points.
Oops!! suddenly there is a financial price to pay to be green.

Lets now add the stupid arguments over carbon like, adding or subtracting feral camels, bushfires on or off National Parks, IPCC back peddling on forecasts and estimates, IPCC refusing to fully disclose all its data for peer review, refusing to even contemplate the nuclear option if they are fair dinkum about utilising current cleaner technology. (because its also not populist)
Kevin 747 and the size of our green PM's carbon foot print.
The people also realising that the climate change arguments has now become a self sustaining business in its own right and the proponents cannot be trusted as they are making money out of it.

Howard turned turtle pretty quick as he saw how populist the climate debate had become and needed to play catch up real quick pre election, for sure he miss read the political climate on climate change and shot himself in the foot over the matter, the rest is history.

Its only now that people are truly waking up to how unbalanced this issue has become.
Tax Australians and we will cure the worlds problems, damn lets not get the fact that we contribute less than 1 percent to world carbon emissions so our claimed reduction would really make the world better, yeah right!!

Mean while we go into a spending frenzy in an attempt to keep us out of recession and now someone has to pay for it, additional tax revenue gained by any means is always going to help.

And you can bet that despite the claims that any money raised would be put back into green programs and reducing carbon emissions that it will end up supporting other programs and spending.
Just look at how much of our fuel tax is actually spent on roads for a small comparative argument.

What happens to this tax if in say 5 years the scientists say, damn we got it wrong and carbon is not the problem we thought.
I bet the government of the day won't switch it off.

This debate is going around in circles and I think it will go the same way as the beat up doom and gloom over the world oil crisis back in the 70's.

What we are seeing is a major swing against Rudd over a number of issues climate and the ETS/CRPS being but one, will it be enough to tip him out later this year, probably not but it will be interesting to watch.

Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain just why Kevin Rudd wants to bring in this so called Tax

you avoided my question last time I asked it.
==================================

Why would a popularly elected PM and government WANT to bring in a new and unpopular tax ? Especially one that in a few years as you say would not do anything ?

rudd has just spent billions on stimulating the economy and any new tax is going to suppress that stimulus. He is facing an election, most Australians want action on climate change, I just don't understand how you think he wants to bring in an unpopular tax just for the hell of it?

Do you think he just decided "oh A new tax would be a great idea, it may lose me the next election but what the hell I will try and bring one in"
==================================

As for the spending to prevent a financial disaster did you watch the SBS program "The Love of Money" on the GFC the final episode was on last night.

It explained very simply how close the world came to a total and catastrophic financial breakdown. Without rapid and massive government intervention there was a very real possibility of waking up one morning and finding that the world banking system had collapsed and if you had any money in a bank then you had lost it overnight.

Do you have any money in a bank or any investments ?

Would you be upset or annoyed if they disappeared because governments refused to stimulate the economy ?

I know I would be, again people seem to underestimate the severity of the crisis and make judgments based on assumptions.

Lets deal with Gone Bush first. It only becomes Law under international agreement. If the other countries don't sign up, there is no international agreement. If they do sign up, we are all in the same boat. It is an awfully big jump to assume that we wont be able to cut emissions and therefore the public would have to pay it. There are lots of other avenues that can be used to cut emissions. As an example, while I wouldn't try to defend the cock up on the insulation program implementation, the fact remains that about 92% of houses have been insulated OK and this will contribute to lowereing both emissions and their household costs., Then there is the ongoing roll out of wind turbines and so on and so on.
But please recall, I am not a supporter of the ets scheme on quite different grounds, I just don't accept that it is a tax.
Some further points on that.
Australia may only contribute 1% of the world's emissions, but per head of population, we are the greatest emitter of CO2 in the world. Now put yourself in the position of either the Chinese or the Indians. Would you be prepared to listen to a country that had a much higher standard of living than yours, but siad"stuff you Jack, we aren't prepared to give up anything, but we expect you to." Which is why Kev argued that we needed to show leadership. And we didn't. And that is just what the third world countries said.
But as i keep saying, I'm not a supporter of ets. But it does have one little nugget should we go it alone and other countries not follow, a little nugget that I would have thought you would have approved of. Under intenational Trading treaties, we can't put tarrifs on most imported goods from most countries. But if we had a carbon emission trading system, we could apply that to any imported goods that were produced in a non emission trading manufacturing country. So we could effectively put a tarrif on all imports from these countries to bring them up to parity with our production costs. China in particular at Copenhagen was concerned that this might happen. So , there is no trading disadvantage to a country that goes down the ets path.
Whew, I've had enough for now and will have to leave John's latest until next time, but meanwhile John, you might like to look at it again because we have done most of them before.we have done that one before..

Let's face it, Rudd has done a poor job of explaining and selling his ETS. He had to weaken it considerably it at the request of big business in the hope it would pass the senate, even then it couldn't pass. The ETS should have been made stronger, not weaker.

However, the general idea of the ETS is sound. Europe have had one for several years, the US are trying to pass one as we speak, with limited success unfortunately. It is not a new tax as Mr "climate change is crap" spurts out of his mouth.

What is the other option if you aren't happy with Rudd's performance? Get someone in who believes that "climate change is absolute crap?"

Australia has only 1% of total emissions but per capita we are huge. We have a long way to catch up with the rest of the world. Don't forget we sell huge amounts of coal to China, so to sit back and say we are small potatoes is a weak cop out. The world will eventually move on co2 emissions and we will be left even further behind.

There is no long term future in selling coal. Australia needs to prepare for the day when coal is deeply unpopular.

Go through the ABC news archives and find a speech made by Malcolm Turnbull a couple of weeks ago addressing the lower house on why he is crossing the floor. This is the way Rudd should be explaining it.

That is always the problem with complex issues, the government is faced with explaining a difficult concept to a skeptical public while the opposition can just keep repeating the catch phrase "Great Big Tax".


Rather than continuing to base our economy on coal exporting we should be developing new and better alternative energy sources and paying extra tax to fund the brilliant scientists we already have.

We already lead the world in many of these research areas but much of our research is forced to go overseas to get the funding required for commercial development.

I was very disappointed with the Family First senator Steve Fielding he has access to the best and brightest scientists in Australia yet for information on Global Climate Change he spends thousands of dollars attending a religion based conference in America on the subject and comes back preaching the skeptics views.

It is fine to talk to everyone about their opinions but why ignore the local experts and then believe the overseas preachers.

D200Dug posted
"Without rapid and massive government intervention there was a very real possibility of waking up one morning and finding that the world banking system had collapsed and if you had any money in a bank then you had lost it overnight."

sorry mate but if this was even remotrly maybe even a bit true - there would be some evidence
----------- like say maybe at the very minimum slightly reduced profits from the banks let alone something a bit more severe that you talk of

but yet we are seeing (and they are trying dearly to hide thae absalute full extent -you can be assured of that)

record interim profits

--- i will repeat that - RECORD

and that is after teams of accountants have hidden as many zeros as possible

there is absalutly no question your assertion is completly false.

The biggest problem with an ETS is not that the money goes on tax - that would be an OK outcome , at least we would have some hope of seeing the money

no it is all destined to be burned by ETS companys which will be backed by the same huge payout flyby night ceoS that bougth you Oxiana, telstra, opus prime, Firepower etc etc etc

Have a look at the You tube clip posted above.
It interviews the head scientist among others from the IPCC and its interesting to listen to what they say about the political twist being applied to the science.

In essence your correct and they address the point about temperature difference between the upper atmosphere and the earths surface and why CO2 can't be the pollutant its claimed to be.

Never let the truth get in the way of a new tax.

Very good BBC program that one.

Thats another thing I don't get.

How come CO2, a basic building block of life and plant growth, became to called a pollutant in the last 18 months?

If CO2 is a pollutant, so is O2 and H2O ( both of which can kill you in large quantities).

Boobook and John, you really want to do some reading on this. Co2 is not a pollutant and is never claimed by anyone to be a pollutant. What it does is to slow down the loss of radiant heat from the Earth into space. The more there is in the atmosphere, the more heat is retained around the Earth. A level of CO2 is essential in the air mix to stop everything dropping below well zero as soon as the sun sets and for photosynthesis. Too much is a different thing.
Can I suggest "Poles Apart" the most balanced book I know that attempts to analyze thr arguments of both sides of the climate change debate. I reckon that Tony Abbot has read it, a number of his statements appear to have come straight from this book.

Mfewster: a few posts above you said:
"Energy is constant, across a closed system"

Now you say:
"What it does is to slow down the loss of radiant heat from the Earth into space"

So, clearly, the Earth is not a closed system I am wondering, therefore, which system you believe to be closed? The universe perhaps...?

Yes, you were trying to be sarcastic and (probably accidentally) got it right. I'll bet you haven't done much Physics. Yes, we receive energy from the sun (and other sources), which, as you probably know, is external to the Earth. Seeing the Earth as the ultimate closed system is one of the foundation stones of modern physics because this is used in the calculations that are done on matter and energy within the universe

Member - Mfewster(SA) posted:
Boobook and John, you really want to do some reading on this. Co2 is not a pollutant and is never claimed by anyone to be a pollutant. ........


Mfewster, I personally agree with you but my point is if that is the case, why do we have the CRPS as "the single most important issue facing Australia?

Carbon POLLUTION Reduction Scheme. Australia's Low POLLUTION Future.

Dept of Climate Change

Boobook. I agree with you on that. It should be called Carbon Emission Reduction. But while I accept the general picture on global warming and accept that the current levels of warming are largely man made, I don't support the current Carbon Emissions Trading type legislation. In my opinion, politicians are running scared and hope to convince us that they can control carbon emissions with offsets, that is, we don't have to change much about the way we live, we can invest in schemes that will soak up CO2 and store it. I think the poiliticians claim this because they want us all to believe that this can be managed, ie, we can keep using coal, cars etc and just soak up the Co2. You pay a tax if you emit too much Co2 and the tax should be used to plant more trees or othersystems to soak it up. This is a much easier thing to tell the public than that they have to change some fundamental aspects of how we live. Copenhagen showed how hopelessly difficult it was to get even agreement on that. Most of the data seems to show that it is far too late for carbon Emission trading to have much effect. So they usually apologize by saying something like "Well, it's a start."

Mfewster

If you ever need validation on the ETS crazyness read this article.

Feral camels don't count in Emissions target

By the same logic ( CO2 is heavier than air )

(1) we should all be dead because the CO2 in the air will fall out and we will suffocate

and (2) you will never see muddy water because rocks and dirt are heavier than water and they will sink.

it is this kind of dumb pseudo science that really annoys me about Global Climate Change Skeptics. They make it very obvious that they do not understand what they are talking about but their ignorance on the subject does not seem to embarrass them.

They seem to be so anti science that they almost take a pride in their ignorance.

So far there has been no sound repeatable science based research that disproves accelerated Global Climate Change due to the effects of man made pollutants in the atmosphere.

The whole case for skeptics is based on refusing to accept the scientific research already done by experts.

If Global Climate change is false where is the published independent peer reviewed research that shows this ?

I have no argument with that Boobook. As I said, I think the Carbon trading schemes are dubious at best and probably worthless. I think they are a great smokecreen by big business tp try to convince us that this can be dealt with relatively painlessly. This doesn't of course mean that the basic issue isn't real. The Greens of course opposed Rudds Emission Trading Scheme in the Senate, for much the same reasons.

D200Dug
Correct CO2 is heavier than air, something like 1.5x
Concentrations of any gas heavier than air will sink to the bottom of mines, tunnels etc and people that work in these environments need either artificially induced ventilation or breathing apparatus to prevent suffocation.
Large rocks and dirt will sink, even lighter particles of detritus will sink if left in still water.
This isn't pseudo science or hocus pocus it is simple physics.
I guess the reason we don't all choke to death on our CO2 emissions and water in motion appears muddy is that air currents and water currents cause heavier particles to remain in suspension.

Your are right that no science based research has disproved GCC is a direct effect by mans intervention. I put to you that equally no science based research has proven this to be the case. It appears that it is a matter of who's research and who's experts you choose to believe.
Personally I see nothing wrong with trying to reduce the amount of pollutants being released into our atmosphere, what I find distasteful is the hysterical cries of "the sky is falling" no pun intended.

Cheers Pop

What I find very distasteful and disrespectful is people who obviously do not understand the workings of scientific research making wild statements about things they obviously know nothing about.

If there is a real danger to the environment and ecosystem of the world as a whole should those who have studied these changes warn people about them or should they remain silent?

If in 50 years time we have an unmitigated world wide disaster and nothing had been said to warn us do you think people would be upset and angry ?

The problem seems to be if you warn people they are unhappy

and if you don't warn them they will be unhappy

and if you warn them and take action to prevent the disaster they will be unhappy because they will say "you warned us and it never happened"

Really any way you look at this people who bring bad news are always going to be blamed. Sadly it is the scientists who found the problems that are copping the blame while industry an unchecked development that caused the problems continue on their way.

So D200Dug obviously because I don't necessarily agree with your point of view this makes me a person who has no grasp of scientific research or principles and prone to making wild statements. A pretty hasty judgement on your part don't you think? You and I have never met and you know nothing about me but because I don't bow to your, in your opinion, superior intellect and better understanding of the fundamentals of scientific principles with regard to the subject at hand that automatically makes me wrong. My tenuous grasp of scientific research has taught me one thing and that is question everything and assume nothing. One point I thoroughly agree on, the making of wild statements is very distasteful

Cheers Pop

Pop why should you be surprised by Doug's comments.
Aren't they but typical of the monotonous statements made by the Pro Climate Change lobby.

Anyone who questions the science is labelled a "Climate Heretic" and we are going to burn in hell, or if you believe the Pro lobby, drown in the rising sea levels, die of thirst or maybe get a case sunburn bad enough to kill us.

But if we leave it up to Rudd then his tax on all Australians will cure the world.

A count of the death toll in the name of Pro Climate change is 4 to date and the damage to homes is what?? 93 burnt down and the future is countless thousands of homes at risk and another $100 million to clean up the mess and it may take 5 years to finish.
Given this aspect I guess climate change policy is a real risk to the Australian population.

"I'll bet you haven't done much Physics."

You would be the poorer for so doing.

"Seeing the Earth as the ultimate closed system is one of the foundation stones of modern physics because this is used in the calculations that are done on matter and energy within the universe"

What?

With statements as convoluted (and inaccurate) as that I'll bet you haven't done much analytical report writing.

The Earth may be warming or it may not be - such warming may, or may not, be part of a natural cycle. The Earth is such a complex and long lived system and our observations merely permit us to examine a tiny, tiny fraction of its life span, to then extrapolate this to a specific certainty flies in the face of scientific sense. We have just had an 8.8 earthquake off Chile - that wasn't predicted yet you assure me we know enough about the planet to predict its climate decades into the future - I say rubbish.

Don't worry about Global Warming; instead worry about the population level of the planet - you can have all the emissions trading schemes you like but if/when the population of this planet hits 10 billion and more, global warming will pale into insignificance. Then again... there aren't any research grants to be had or taxes to be collected or profits to be made or imaginary high moral ground upon which to stand from stating the obvious, are there?

Apply occam's razor to the question and see what the result is.

About 98% of scientists working in the fields associated with climate change agree there is man made acceleration of climate change.


About 2% of scientists disagree.

What would be the most logical conclusion you can draw from these figures?

Doug200 said "What would be the most logical conclusion you can draw from these figures?"


You could reasonably conclude that 98% of scientists wouldn't advocate ceasing funding of Trillions of dollars and hence their jobs.

They would be stupid if they said "there is no climate change and you don't need us from now on." wouldn't they?

That is the problem, they have a heavily vested interest in keeping the issue alive. The alternative downside is enormous for the "scientists".

It is EXACTLY like asking a real estate agent "When is the best time to buy real estate?". 98% will say now.

BTW I think you will find it's not 98% Doug. Where did you get that figure. Based on your comments it would be rigorously and scientifically backed up wouldn't it?

D200dug . "98% of scientists working in the field agree, about 2% disagree "

In the 14th century 98% of scientists agreed that the world was flat and 2% thought that the world was an orb.

What is the most logicol conclusion to these figures !!

Figures are here

Have a read you may find it interesting.


http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Alloy sorry but many scientists in the 14 century knew the earth was round and revolved around the sun.

Again popular mythology does not replace good research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

Around 330 BC, Aristotle provided observational evidence for the spherical Earth,[17]

The false belief that medieval Christianity believed in a flat earth has been referred to as The Myth of the Flat Earth.[5] In 1945, it was listed by the Historical Association (of Britain) as the second of 20 in a pamphlet on common errors in history.[6] The myth that people of the Middle Ages believed that the Earth was flat only entered the popular imagination in the 19th century, thanks largely to the publication of Washington Irving's fantasy The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus in 1828.[5]

Come on Doug, surely you can come up with a better source of fact that that website.

You make an unsubstantiated claim on the internet and when asked to justify it you refer to an unsubstantiated claim on the internet. Not very convincing.

Feel free to post evidence to the contrary.

It is very easy to say you do not believe something.

Come up with some facts to back your argument and I will believe you.

It is common knowledge that the vast majority of scientists working in this field support the theory of man made climate change.

The skeptics keep telling us this is because of some conspiracy amongst them so even the skeptics agree on this overwhelming majority.

just a thought
CO2...its a newer refrigerant for the refrigeration industry...

if its so bad for the enviroment why are they making it (tonnes and tonnes of it) for use?

let me know when you find out

D200 "does not replace good research " you made the statement of 98% of scientists agree ... please explain how you achieved this figure of 98% , how many scientists are there in the world ? How many of these scientists are involved with the study of global warming? How many of these scientists have a finacial obligation that could influence their findings ? Do your research .LOL.

MFewster,
>>"In my opinion, politicians are running scared and hope to convince us that they can control carbon emissions with offsets, that is, we don't have to change much about the way we live".

You are very articulate about this issue but I must disagree with just this one point. If a pollitician came out and said we had to REALLY change all of the things necessary to control co2 emissions, do you think he would stay in office after the next election?

There needs to be a price on carbon emitted at the source, a good solid price. That money then needs to go back into the widespread rollout and development of clean, renewable energy sources. It will be costly financially but every dollar we spend now save several dollars down the track.

There is a potentially huge market in renewable energy production. For years Australian renewable industries have been going overseas because there isn't the support here. There needs to be active government legislative involvement, the market will not sort it out.

Australia is falling behind as we have this obsession with selling coal and storing c02 underground. People talk about "pseudoscience", well carbon sequestration is just that.

Personally I'm tired of discussing whether climate change is real or not, the real discussion now is what we can do about it.

The figure of 98% is a widely published number it has been in nature and new scientist to name a couple of publications.

The vast majority of scientists working in this field agree on the theory of man made climate change.

Their research backs this hypothesis.

So far there has been no sound independent research published to disprove this theory.

It would seem we are entering a new dark age where people fear science knowledge and intelligence. A world where ignorance and fear prevails.

another interesting statistic is that 40% of the population of the USA believes the world is 6000 years old and made in 6 days.

These are the same people who are pumping out the global climate change is a myth and just trust in God a disaster of biblical proportions will bring jesus back to earth sooner.

Backed by huge polluting companies who stand to lose billions of dollars of clean energy is ever developed they have run a very successful scare campaign and I must admit it is good because so many people seem to want to believe in this myth and ignore the hard science based observations.

I guess if you believe everything you need to know is either in the bible or the Quran it is easier and safer for your to ignore the real world.

medieval warm period

Another interesting read on Wikipedia if we are going to use it as a reference source.


Cheers Pop

D200Dug posted:

"Apply occam's razor to the question and see what the result is.

About 98% of scientists working in the fields associated with climate change agree there is man made acceleration of climate change. "

And also posted

"Feel free to post evidence to the contrary.

It is very easy to say you do not believe something.

Come up with some facts to back your argument and I will believe you.

It is common knowledge that the vast majority of scientists working in this field support the theory of man made climate change. "

But according to this survey ( which is pro climate change argument)

Survey on climate change

ONLY 97% of scientists even agree that there is global warming, and only 74% agree that there is evedence of man made effects on warming.

There you go. Like your references, this was on the internet so it must be true.

Apologies Nigel Migraine. You accurately quoted me as saying "Seeing the Earth as the ultimate closed system" I was wrong, the Earth is not a closed system. I meant to say Universe instead of Earth. After that, my statement is completely accurate. Sorry if you find the concept convuluted.
The science involved in studying Tectonic plate movement has very little to do with the study of global climate change. Moreover, it does predict earthquakes to the extent that it can predict the areas where earthquakes are likely to occur, which is, along the borders of tectonic pl;ates. It can't give dates on this or even the likely magnitude, but this is all quite irrelevant to the climate debate.
There is LOTS of money available for any scientists who have an avenue of research that suggests that the data on climate change is wrong. Big business and the energy companies (amongst the very biggest of businesses) would love to say this can be ignored. Politicians would love to be able to ignore it. If there was a credible line of research along these lines potential researchers would be drowning in dollars to get the data to convince the world this was all wrong. Look at the billions the Howard and Rudd governments have given the coal industry to try to find a way to sequester Co2, compared to the pittance tha has been given to assist alternative energy development.
Re your points on population, I agree totally, but see my comments to Royce on the same issue

Sorry Barnsey, I have been off line for most of today and I am a kind of late in getting back to your points.
I totally agree that the debate re cause is over in most scientific circles and the issue now is what do we do about it. And I am certainly on the side of those who think major population control measures are probably the only thing that can now make much of an impact.
It is too late for carbon emissions trading to have much of a positive benefit. The kind of trading measures Rudd (and let's not forget, Howard had almost exactly the same policy on this) wont have much beneficial effect for nearly 100 years. The critical points will occur much faster than this. James Lovelock, for example, accurately predicted the thawing of the Tundra. This started in the early 2000's . The melting Tundra is now contributing adding so much to greenhouse gasses than our tentative CO2 emissions controls are probably useless. And at Copenhagen we couldn't even get countries to agree on that, even though every country agreed on the reality of GW and its causes.

ONLY 97% of scientists even agree that there is global warming, and only 74% agree that there is evedence of man made effects on warming.
======================================
I believe the percentage is higher but it depends on what disciplines you include and exclude I guess.

For the sake of this argument I am more than happy to agree with your figures.

I repeat the vast majority of world scientists agree that there is a problem and we need to do something about it.

I hope you now believe that man made global climate change is a real problem and we need to take the issue seriously .

"It takes years of hard work to create something. Any fool can destroy it in 5 minutes."
=============================================
I really like and appreciate this saying I think it hits the mark very well.

Scientists devote years of their lives collecting and interpreting data and then some fool can come along and spread a fear campaign that destroys the credibility of that work in a very short time.

I am glad you understand the concept of having years of hard work wrecked by a few malicious idiots.

Mfewster
No problem, it's easy for confusion to arise in these internet discussions.

However:
"the Earth is not a closed system. I meant to say Universe instead of Earth"

Well... I did pick up on that as I thought it may be what you intended so my next point is... what is your scientific prove of this assertion?

D200Dug posted:
The figure of 98% is a widely published number it has been in nature and new scientist to name a couple of publications.

and

For the sake of this argument I am more than happy to agree with your figures.

Now there is a man committed to facts and rigorous arguments.

Go read your previous posts on the need for facts. Now any ol' figure that suits your argument will do.

You are going in ever decreasing circles ----- with yourself.

Lets leave you to it hey.

D200Dug,
>>"It takes years of hard work to create something. Any fool can destroy it in 5 minutes." That's not entirely my quote.

The original one was more along the lines of: "It has taken me years of hard work to come up with this theory, anybody can present a piece of evidence that disproves it".

Albert Einstein on his theory of relativity.

Pertinent, isn't it.

Fine as I said "98% of scientists working in the field agree, about 2% disagree "

I stand by that, your comment said "ONLY 97% of scientists even agree that there is global warming, and only 74% agree that there is evedence of man made effects on warming."

I am happy with that as well as many scientists DO NOT WORK IN THE FIELD OF CLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH . I know many scientists who's area of research has nothing to do with climate.

Both comments can be correct and both comments back my argument.

As for the comment

"The original one was more along the lines of: "It has taken me years of hard work to come up with this theory, anybody can present a piece of evidence that disproves it". Albert Einstein on his theory of relativity. "

I could not agree more but what someone needs to do is present sound scientific evidence that is peer reviewed and has good science behind it. As yet on this matter that has not been done.

There has been a massive amount of smoke and mirrors but no hard science to deny the theory as it stands.



Climate change skeptics are currently in the same league and those who insist "Intelligent design and creationism are equal to Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection" All bluster and no science.

Mfewster,

I'm not as cynical about the cap and trade ETS as you are. Europe have had one for several years, the US are trying to get one through the senate. Unless we (the planet) reduce, not stall but ACTIVELY REDUCE the population then nothing will change. How do you rapidly reduce a population that doesn't involve mass slaughter?

I think we both know that no politician is going to come out and say we need to actively reduce our population globally. The reason a global agreement wasn't made in Copenhagen was because of China and India. They felt they would be at a disadvantage with developing their countries if they had to use more expensive renewable energies when developed countries had the benefit of cheap coal.

They couldn't see how renewables would provide the large amounts of power needed RIGHT NOW! They certainly haven't been able to rely on many western countries over the last 15 years to aid them in developing with renewables, have they?

Copenhagen fails, and a few weeks ago a Queensland coal magnate sgins a 20 year deal to sell China more coal! Australia isn't helping here. The coal magnate just happens to be suing the Queensland Premier at the same time! This is a real scandal that the federal government should have been looking at, not some administrative mistakes in a home insulation scheme.

Putting a price on coal is the best start to reducing co2 emissions. Many people in the know agree with this, including the IPCC.

Barnsey, in principle I agree with the emissions trading scheme, it is just too late. If it had been implemented 20-30 years ago it might have worked. Unfortunately we have passed the first of the "tipping points" and now the scheme is more symbolic rather than something that can be effective. This is why the Greens opposed it in the Senate. The problem is that concentrating on it now will create an impression that this is "the answer" and other actions will go onto the back burner for even longer.
No, I don't want to reduce population by war etc. The first step has to be to get countries to co-operate to implement economic systems based on sustainabilty rather than growth. With that in place, we could have a serious attempt to limit population growth through population control. The only Party talking even vaguely along these lines in Australia is the Greens. And they don't talk about it much either.

China has implemented a massive population control effort with the one child police unfortunately politically they are locked into a continued growth cycle. If the government wishes to keep power and control they need to keep growth and profits up to prevent social disorder and riots.

Chinese want democracy but will make do with profits instead. If the profit stops then the freedom movement starts up again.

The other unfortunate thing is the 2 main religions in developing countries Islam and Catholics both oppose birth control as more babies equals more believers.

So population control programs are undermined by religions.

A friend who is a doctor points out that the world is well overdue for a really decent pandemic that would kill off about 1/3 to 1/4 of the worlds population in less than a year.

Something like that happening while catastrophic for people would give breathing space for the environment.

That is true Mfewster. It is not simply reducing co2 emissions, long term the world does need to create an economy based on sustainability rather than requiring a population increase to provide economic growth. But how are we going to implement that when we are stuck at the "should we do anything at all" phase?

First things first. It is too late to avoid damage. But too late to bring in an ETS? No.

Even the greens would support an ETS if it was tougher. They don't support Rudd's because it has been weakened too much to appease big business. Meanwhile, the Greens have proposed an interim price on co2 emissions until a more comprehensive ETS can be negotiated between the major parties.

Personally I hope the Greens get the balance of power in the senate after the next election and can negotiate directly with the government (not a "climate change is crap" government either).

Has anybody answered Boobooks original question?

My guess would be because of centripital acceleration.

Remember the experiments you did at school. Fill a plastic bottle with oil and water, tie a string to the bottle and spin it above your head in a cricle. Is the heavy liquid pushed to top or the bottom of the bottle?

I answered the question about the weight of CO2 the thing is gasses have different weights but as the air is constantly moving they remain mixed like mud in water..If you leave muddy water sit still the heavy parts fall out but while it is in constant motion they remain suspended.

While high and low pressure systems continue to mix the air all the various gasses will remain a pretty equal mix.

If the air didn't mix farts would stay in the same place for weeks :-(

I personally am not in favour of an ETS as I do not think it address the main problem.

I think the action needs to be more direct and more focused on new industry.

We have the technology to produce 100% of the worlds energy needs from wind geothermal and solar within 10 years.

the main problem is with industry built on oil coal gas and nuclear energy very few major companies are willing to walk away from such major investments to build low cost energy generators.

Unlike coal oil, gas and nuclear once a solar, wind or geothermal plant is established the running costs and infrastructure is minimal.

How do they keep making long term profits from this technology ?

Yeah doug, I agree, I don't mind an ets particularly, it is just that it is too late to do any good. James Lovlelock argued that everyone going atomic power 20 or so years ago was the only answer. He also recognized thelong term problems with nuclear so said we should go nuclear for no more than 30 years because after that the problems of nuclear waste stockpiling would outweigh the gains. But, (and its a big BUT) he said we should use the 30 years we gained for a massive international research program to make cold fusion work. If it does, this gives us unlimited, pollution/co2 free electricity. Lovelocks support for nuclear power is the reason the Greens never talk about him, even though he started the climate warming research. His argument still looks good to me. An ABC science program about 2 weeks ago on cold fusion claimed that science now know how to make it work, they just need to design something that will withstand the plasma temperatures.

>>I think the action needs to be more direct and more focused on new industry.

How can a new, emerging industry that is actually more expensive to set up compete with a huge, established, powerful and cheap industry? Why would a coal company change to renewables? Why?

To get renewables rolled out on a large scale they either need to be cheaper, or coal needs to be more expensive.

There's little anybody can do directly to make renewables cheaper but it is very possible to make coal more expensive, by putting a price on co2. If that price is big enough all of a sudden renewables are looking more cost effective. As they become more commonplace their costs will come down further. That is the way a supply and demand market place works. The price of electricity will go up, that's unavoidable.

We do have the technology now to run the whole planet 100% renewable, but why would we when coal is so cheap. There needs to be a disincentive away from coal.

Mfewster, I agree with everything you said except on the ETS. But on nuclear fusion, I'm sorry that's not really an option, is it? It's sort of like carbon sequestration, scientists say they can do it, in a lab, but are there even any pilot plants? How far away until it MAY become a reality on an industrial scale? 20, 30, 40, 50 years?

I don't know the answer to that Barnsey. Lovelock's point was that our current emission production rate is suicidal and that when tipping points were reached, ie, when the Tundra started to melt, it is irreversible. He was arguing that it was a gamble but that the odds favoured being able to make it work. so rather than accept long term suicide, better to buy 30 years by going nuclear and invest in something that had a high probablity of giving a way out.Trouble is, he was advocating this before the Tundra started to melt. It now is melting. But the scientists who were inerviewed last week seemed pretty confident they now knew how to make cold fusion work, it is just a matter of developing suitable materials for the container. They seemed to be confident that this can be done. I can't assess this stuff, but it looked promising.

1988 was just after we vacated the old Tower and moved to the new one on the Int'l side. (ATC for 25 years.)

The site at Mt Lawley is the Sportsmen's Assoc'n building where many 4wd Clubs meet (including the one I belong to).

Baaahaaaahaaaa ......

I just read this ..... Site Link ... Thanks for the link Boobook

Its actually ... probably more sad than funny ....

An even better example of the stupidity being implemented is this bit at the end of the atricle ....

"Mr Keogh noted that while emissions from a deliberately lit bushfire count under Kyoto, they did not if the fire was caused by lightning.

And it also varies depending on whether it razes privately owed land or a national park.

"When it's burning in the park, none of those emissions officially count, but when it spreads back out of the park to private land on the other side, it starts to again contribute to greenhouse emissions as measured by the UN's rules," he said."

Couldnt have poorly managed Aust Nat Parks held in anyway responsible ... could we ?


Interesting too, that one one of the biggest ... and ever increasing, carbon emmitters on the planet ... is always lightly discussed or delicately avoided ....

Is that because it would make a mockery of our Govts " Have one for the Nation Policy " ????

Not too mention the Govt intimidation via taxes, fuel types etc etc to "encourage" motorists to get rid of their motor vehicle ... in favour of an eco friendly vehicle which probably emitted more carbons in production - than what the old one would if kept for its lifetime.

Of course we can. The biosphere,the actual layer within which all life forms on Earth exist is incredibly thin (much thinner relatively than the thickness of an eggshell). All life forms within this layer are interdependent. When one species clears away huge areas of plantlife, or releases huge quantities of stored carbon into the system, or decimates the oceans, you don't think we are changing the cycles?
Yes, some things are within our control and some aren't. But if the aim of species is to promote the survival of their species, surely it is pretty loopy of a species to just ignore its own impact. Possibly we are the first species in the history of the planet to not make the continuance of our own gene pool our top priority.

I find it amazing that Alloy c/t has a greater knowledge of the climate and the ecosystem than the collective knowledge of many thousands of hard working scientists.
I am sorry if I underestimate his credentials perhaps he will be kind enough to let us know what field of research he got his PHD in and what his current published articles are.


As for the actions of mankind having the ability to adversely affect the weather the great smog of London in December 1952 was able to end the lives of 4,000 people. Back then the rainforests of the world were largely intact, the population of the world was much less and the major industrialization of countries like China and India had not even begun.

Sadly man can and is capable of disrupting the weather patterns. If we do not change our outlook now we just do not know what the final outcome will be.

Science can make predictions about the possibilities but we do not know for certain if climate change will be relatively benign or catastrophic.

If you have children and grand children is it really worth the risk to save a few bucks ?

Back in the 60s the end of the world was to be due to nuclear annihilation , now in the 00s+ we are all to die due to global warming ,, Dinosaur flatulance perhaps , and D200Dug you forget 1 very important aspect of a Phd and that it is based on a THEORY nothing more nothing less and many a THEORY that resulted in a Phd has at a later date been proven to be WRONG.

Everything is a theory

Gravity is still only a theory

How electricity works is still only a theory

That does not make much difference if you fall from a building or stick your fingers in a light socket.


Back in the 60s nuclear war was a real threat and people took action to reduce that threat and now you are saying because people acted responsibly back then they should not do the same now ?


Having spent 16 years working in a university helping PHD students research their "Theories" I think I understand a little bit about the scientific process and the amount of trial and testing that goes into publishing a theory. My eldest son is now in his third year of researching his PHD theory yes it is still just a theory and may not work but is the risk worth taking the chance that thousands of scientific theories and the research done by thousands of researchers is flawed ?

What do you lose if they are wrong and we take action ?

What do you lose if they are right and we do not act ?

Should we have ignored the risks of the past to see if they caused catastrophic disasters or should we have acted to protect ourselves ?

Sorry Alloy, but you clearly do not understand how science works. The point about science and theories is that in science the only thing that counts is the evidence and the repeatability of the phenomenon. If the evidence changes, the theory falls or changes, but it must be based on the evidence. That is why all science is expressed in theories. I heard a gentleman recently arguing against evolution because "it was only a theory" whereas as a fundamentalist, no one could question his unshakeable source of knowledge. He also didn't accept the data on Climate change (but I'm not arguing that all those opposed to the data on climate change are fundamentalists.)

"The biosphere,the actual layer within which all life forms on Earth exist is incredibly thin (much thinner relatively than the thickness of an eggshell). "

What tha??????

How do we fit into an eggshell?? Something missing in that explaination?

(much thinner RELATIVELY than the thickness of an eggshell). "

scale up an egg to the size of the earth and the RELATIVE thickness of the shell will be much thicker than that of our atmosphere.

"scale up an egg to the size of the earth and the RELATIVE thickness of the shell will be much thicker than that of our atmosphere."

Ah... I understand. So .. relative to the universe we are but a speck.... so ... we don't matter.

No one said we do not matter just that the atmosphere is very thin and fragile.

You asked the question "How do we fit into an eggshell?? Something missing in that explaination?"

I answered it as best I could.

What is your problem ?

Yes... something is missing in the explaination.

I appreciate your passionate stance on this issue. Good on you.

Preaching to the skeptics will not change them. The more you spout emotively the more they see you as a zealot.

Eggshell analogies are fine, but silly.

1. Science supports strongly the theory that the climate is changing and is tending to warm.
2. Science supports the theory that human activity is part of this process.
3. Scientists and the socio-economic cohort in which they inhabit are now telling the rest of the world to change....

We both know that this will only happen when the storms hit, the seas flood and famines are on our doorstep. It will be an interesting life from here.

I'm quite interested in how things play out.

I'm on your side, but in your enthusiasm, you didn't realize. :-]]

Sorry I have spent much of my life working with scientists of various disciplines.

Every one of them could have made a lot more money if they had chosen another career path or done something different.

Every one of them became a scientist because they were fascinated by science and finding out how various things worked.

For people to say there is a conspiracy or that they are faking the facts just makes me very defensive.

The problem is by the time the problem becomes so obvious the damage will have been done and the effects will be far more difficult to control.

Cheers doug

Does anyone know why the scientific community seems to ignore population growth as the most significant cause of global pollution (and therefore climate change)?

Every single example of increased pollution (including climate change data) that I've seen has as it's principal cause the size of the global population and the impact of the resources demand by that population.

It's pretty easy to see why politicians would run a mile from taking this further, but why do fearless scientists who are only interested in presenting the facts remain so incredibly quiet on this issue?

Reducing co2 emissions, and all other pollution control measures will only buy us all a bit more time if the global population continues to grow unabated.

Pollution control is essential, but it will not fix the underlying cause.

RJ

RJ, I don't think I have the energy to reply to all the messages that this thread is generating, but I'll make an exception for yours. I completely agree with you re human overpopulation being the biggest problem, and in previous threads on EO I have argued this. Quite a few scientists do argue this and in Australia, a group from Monash University in particular have advocated this. (A Professor Birrell I think). The reason noone wants to take it up is that our entire national and international economic system runs on the expectation of growth. And economic growth is fueled by the expectation of continuing population growth to drive up demand. Every politician of every different party around the world knows that you can't have a statiic level of population without having a static economy and no-one believes that any country will wear that. The only way it can be done is to have a state controlled, planned economy. Just consider how popular that would be with the users of this forum who by and large tend to argue for as little government control as possible.

mfrewster,

Thanks for your response.

What you have outlined is an explanation of why this CAN'T be considered.

Surely it must have been be recognized by most scientists for decades that global population size is the primary cause?

What I'd like to know is why the experts (of all shades) aren't putting their heads together to come up with a solution that CAN be considered. I don't expect the answer will be found on this forum.

We (global) are spending a huge amount of time and effort developing climate change scenarios. IPCC is only one organisation, and with a focussed goal - what is everyone else doing?

Has the global scientific community "gone missing" on the population issue?

Cheers,
RJ

D200Dug
"Sorry I have spent much of my life working with scientists of various disciplines."

You have my sympathy.

"Every one of them could have made a lot more money if they had chosen another career path or done something different."

Rubbish! The vast majority of "scientists" (and what constitutes a "scientist" btw?) are socially inept, introverted individuals and the best thing you can do with them is put them into a back room with a computer and tell them not to scare the children.

We are not talking demi-gods here Dug, we are talking people who you would avoid at a BBQ. They may, or may not, have a grip on science but they would not; "have made a lot more money if they had chosen another career path" - half of them can't remember to tie their shoelaces.

I find it interesting how when faced with a serious discussion some people resort to insults when they run out of ideas.

If there is a moderator watching this thread I really object to having people I have worked with and who I consider my friends insulted in this manner.

RJ, I really have no idea, but I will make a guess. It seems to me that a big part of the problem with GW discussion is that it cuts across just about every scientific discipline. Most scientists get hesitant about entering into peer reviewed discussion in areas outside their area of expertise. Organizations like the IPCC have had issues in trying to draw all the strands together into a coherent picture. It leads them iopen to kind of "cherry picking" critique which looks good in the press and to those who don't understand scientific process.
Slowly, I think out of necessity, there iare branches of science emerging that do try to work across the disciplines involved. Meanwhile for mine, the one person who has got the across discipline expertise and the data is James Lovelock. It was his work on life and bio systems for NASA that first came up with the data that started the discussion. He still seems to me to have the best modelling on the topic and his forecasts so far have been right on the button, except that things seem to be happening faster than he predicted.

Nigel, Nigel, I think you have shot yourself in the foot with post FollowupID: 676312 . Your perceptive views on Science and Scientists begin to sound like those who make similar statements when discussing Evolution. How do you feel about Evolution Nigel?
I'm sorry I wasted all that bandspace by assuming you were serious and attempting to have a reasoned discussion with you.

Mfewster: I note you revert to that time honoured practice of trying to discredit the proponent when you can't answer his argument.

You avoided answering my question; what proof can you provide to support your assertion that we live in a closed universe?

The answer is... you can provide none. Just like you cannot provide proof global warming is man made. Keep in mind, Mfewster, we are talking *proof* not, "very probably" or "the vast majority of scientists agree" and I'll even give you Heisenberg for leeway. You can't do it, can you? Why? Because the *theory* of a closed universe is just that - a theory. Certainly the scientific man (Einstein) I respect most calculated this was the case but, I'm also sure, he would be the first to agree he might be wrong (he wasn't too great on Quantum, was he?). Don't be so conceited as to believe we, with our tiny brains and infinitesimal experience of the universe, are certain in our knowledge of what happens at the speed of light or the edges of the universe - we only invented steam power a couple of hundred years ago.

As for evolution, Mfewster, I suspect the bible has got it wrong and as for your previous question in another part of this thread about containing a plasma... I was poking my head into the tokamak at JET many years ago... I wonder if you were still at school then? 1985 iirc.

As I suspect you know very well Nigel, "proof" in the sense you are using it is a debating trick. Ref my answer in another part of this thread concerning what would constitute proof that the sun will come up tomorrow. This is the old game of never being able to define where a point is actually located because you can continue to divide time and space an infinite number of times. And that of course is why infinitesemal calculas was developed. Proof in scientific terms is the weight of probability on the available evidence. In this sense, all human knowledge is "theory" (apart from those fundamentalists of whatever religious persuasion, who don't need proof because they "know" what is true because it says so in whatever book theyhappen to believe in). If you know about quantum theory and you know about Heisenberg, then you will be familiar with modern physics and "The Big Bang" . The calculations around this area of Physics see the universe as a closed system wherein calculations of matter and energy may be made. It is the whole basis of "The Big Bang". You may or may not accept "the Big Bang" but at our current level of understanding, it is accepted on the weight of probability of the available evidence.
All human knowledge is like that. And on the weight of probability on the available evidence you should be concerned about global warming.
You suspect The Bible got it wrong on evolution, ar are you pretty sure on that? Because the line of argument you used earler came straight out of the Creationist handbook. Re 1985, Nope Nige, I was born in the war years.

Carl -Yeah it is right - If you have lived in Perth you would know that statement is very true - Depending on the strength of the Fremantle Doctor - temperatures can vary greatly suburb to suburb - the further from the ocean the hotter it is.

Excellent points Royce and your right...................so OFF TOPIC
Maybe the Modsquad have gone beddy bys

Cheers Pop

Gee Royce - I think that global warming has perhaps the biggest overall effect on the enviroment that we seek to explore here , so for me at least its very on-topic.

Still I have been out digging tracks all day trying to re-direct water and cleaning up from the biggest downpour I have ever seen.

That's my point Robin! Usually anything that doesn't fit the 4wd, track info, regular mechanical chat doesn't fly here anymore. I've tried on a few occasions to list a discussion point that should interest us all only to have it knocked out because of o/t [then to be fair reinstated because I've complained].

With robust discussion I'm considering paying my membership.

I still can't see anything much of value past the forum tho.

I don't see this thread as OT. For example, with increased co2 in the atmosphere comes increased co2 in the oceans. co2 is acidic and with increased acification comes damage to the ocean and all that relies upon it, including bleaching of the great barrier reef.

If someone says bleaching of the GBR is OT of exploroz, they are on the wrong website. Climate change is directly relevant to exploring this beautiful country.

Ah Barnesy.... that's my point. Many a thread has been knocked on the head because it's OT. This is way more OT than many.

Really ... any topic should be okay on this forum as long as it gains active comment from all of us who have similar interests..

listen...I have a mill that I cant tram...can anyone assist...where should i start...lol

The cold change you felt was the Aircon kicking in , LOL.

"Let's take care of the planet by doing what we know are good things"

Yep agreed!! You turn off your computer and lights and stop driving the car and I will follow.

Well you might want to go to those extremes! I was just talking about things like not wasting water, not leaving rubbish around, not taking huge quantities of fish for all and sundry, not emptying chemical toilets in the bush etc etc. I'm sick of going to beautiful bush camp sites and finding empty beer bottles and rubbish everywhere

some even have high blood pressure now

It has been quite entertaining, I am still to work out who has the biggest appendage. LOL

Is it over?? :-))

How did that sidebar stuff get in there?

And the next thing the "Man is at fault for climate change" brigade will pursue is that "The current spate of earthquakes are caused by the excessive mining for coal in Australia , that the massive transfer of weight has caused the teutonic plates to shift". LOL.

That is actually not far from the truth !

Australia's largest ever recorded earthquake happened in Rockhampton a pretty geologically stable area.

The current theory for it is that the massive amount of silt that runs down the Fitroy river and settles near the mouth acted like a set of scales.

Moving the weight from one side the land to the other side off the coast set off a tipping action that resulted in the earthquake.

There have been similar coastal earthquakes around the world and that is the current and most plausible theory for them.

D200Dug , you can be assured that HaymanReece is working on the problem in the form of a gianormouse extremly large Weight Distribution Hitch that will go between Qld [ the tow vehicle] and NewZealand [very prone to geological movement] .LOL.

The earthquakes in NZ are caused by all the bloody Kiwis moving here and weighing us down !!! LOL

D200 Dug

It's OK all the extra rain that is falling on Qld and NSW is going to balance the silt from the Fitzroy river if the state governments can figure out a way to stop it all running into Lake Eyre which together with the loss of the iron ore from the north of WA and the coal from Qld will cause Oz to slip under Antarctica.


My ribs are hurting


Cheers Pop

I feel it is our civic duty to put on 20kg each and drive to Cape York to act as a counterbalance.

Beer and pizza should do the job ;-)

Which goes to show that the term 'Global warming' is a load of crock , mother nature throwing a cyclic tantrum more like it , earthquakes ,floods ,drought , freezing winters ect , all just part of a loooooooong cycle that modern man with his inflated ego thinks he can control.