Global Warming or Armagedon

Submitted: Saturday, Mar 03, 2012 at 18:20
ThreadID: 92269 Views:2066 Replies:17 FollowUps:47
This Thread has been Archived
This will get people going ?
Is it Global Warming or just going back to the old days of when it used to rain (in SUMMER !)
With the Expansion/ Explosion of building of Sydney"s outer west, is this going to be the norm or just a freak of nature
Back Expand Un-Read 0 Moderator

Reply By: Member - Old Girl - Saturday, Mar 03, 2012 at 18:27

Saturday, Mar 03, 2012 at 18:27
Global CYCLE
AnswerID: 479306

Reply By: Notso - Saturday, Mar 03, 2012 at 18:27

Saturday, Mar 03, 2012 at 18:27
Well this event is supposed to be the biggest since the early 1900s so it might indicate that we are just "going through a cycle"

I sometimes wonder if we humans can really affect things all that much, but there again, the ones who know seem to thin k so. Anyhow I'll hop back up on the fence and sit there a bit longer.
AnswerID: 479307

Follow Up By: get outmore - Saturday, Mar 03, 2012 at 20:01

Saturday, Mar 03, 2012 at 20:01
Who's been listening to too much media hype? Its more like 16 yearsor so
0
FollowupID: 754762

Reply By: Wilko (Parkes NSW) - Saturday, Mar 03, 2012 at 18:33

Saturday, Mar 03, 2012 at 18:33
Hi Tony,

I think its all natural, The only thing that's not natural is the overpopulation of the world. I know a way of reducing the pollution and impact on the environment cull half of the people in the world.

Cheers Wilko
AnswerID: 479308

Follow Up By: tony&bron - Saturday, Mar 03, 2012 at 18:36

Saturday, Mar 03, 2012 at 18:36
starting with who
tony
0
FollowupID: 754749

Follow Up By: Allan B (Member, SunCoast) - Saturday, Mar 03, 2012 at 18:51

Saturday, Mar 03, 2012 at 18:51
Well maybe, just maybe, climate change may do just that.

Cheers
Allan

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 754751

Follow Up By: Wilko (Parkes NSW) - Saturday, Mar 03, 2012 at 19:22

Saturday, Mar 03, 2012 at 19:22
Starting with queenslanders
0
FollowupID: 754758

Follow Up By: Wilko (Parkes NSW) - Saturday, Mar 03, 2012 at 19:23

Saturday, Mar 03, 2012 at 19:23
Hi Allan,

It may just do that or the wars that it will create will
0
FollowupID: 754759

Follow Up By: 2000 Red Rodeo - Saturday, Mar 03, 2012 at 20:03

Saturday, Mar 03, 2012 at 20:03
"The only thing that's not natural is the overpopulation of the world"

I would have thought that of anything population increase was natural. That's what I learned in biology anyway.

Who decides what the limit is for the earths population. Maybe those people should be the first to the exit door
0
FollowupID: 754763

Follow Up By: Member - Royce- Saturday, Mar 03, 2012 at 20:07

Saturday, Mar 03, 2012 at 20:07
Yep... plagues are natural. They finally end with the species eating its way out of viability and the population is reduced.

As humans we can think about what we are doing.... and will be thinking how uncomfortable our reduction is.
0
FollowupID: 754764

Follow Up By: Off-track - Saturday, Mar 03, 2012 at 20:21

Saturday, Mar 03, 2012 at 20:21
If nobody decides on a sustainable population limit (that has probably already gone past) then nature will decide it for us.

And it wont be pretty.
0
FollowupID: 754768

Follow Up By: Member - Mfewster(SA) - Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 09:19

Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 09:19
It all depends on what you mean by natural. Humans are "natural". If humans cause something, is that "natural"?
Science has a pretty good idea what causes natural cycles and can tie previous events/cycles to the various events that caused the cycle - things like gradual continental drift/ sun activity and volcanic eruptions or major meteorite strikes. Except for volcanic eruption and meteorite strikes, these were very slow changes.
What is happeniing now is very different. It is happening very fast (by geological time span standards) and is not explainable in terms of the kinds of causes we know that were behind the major events of previous cycles. But current changes are consistent with the modelling that has been done on man made changes to the eco system. Our eco system is very fragile. I don't think it makes much sense to take it for granted.
0
FollowupID: 754820

Follow Up By: Member - Royce- Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 11:08

Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 11:08
The common understanding of 'natural' is the state which things are in when not effected by mankind.... but of course humans are part of nature, therefore we work to the limitations.
I will probably still be alive to see if the sea rises as predicted. Should be interesing.
0
FollowupID: 754843

Follow Up By: D200Dug- Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 11:29

Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 11:29
The problem is it is not just us

We are responsible for the greatest mass extinction of other species in the history of the planet and we are killing off more and more at an ever increasing rate.

Should we do something or do nothing ?
0
FollowupID: 754849

Follow Up By: Member - Mfewster(SA) - Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 12:03

Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 12:03
FollowupID: 754849 Submitted: Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 10:59
D200Dug posted:
The problem is it is not just us

We are responsible for the greatest mass extinction of other species in the history of the planet and we are killing off more and more at an ever increasing rate.

Should we do something or do nothing ?

Yep. One of the reallly sad aspects is the number of people who think we are somehow different to the rest of life. We are part of a linked chain that depends on other species/life forms. Every extinction of another part of the complex DNA chain that all life on the planet shares threatens every other link of the chain. Eventually every species elimination destroys ourselves.
Should we do something or nothing? The great driving force of all life is the drive to reproduce, to guarantee our species will continue. But human control over all forms of life means we now have to think about the entire chain of life, not just our own species, if we want our species to survive.
0
FollowupID: 754864

Follow Up By: Wilko (Parkes NSW) - Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 12:39

Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 12:39
My Thoughts are,

if the human population of the earth was half of what it is today, There wouldnt be a lot of the probs we are seeing today.

Probs such as pollution land clearing etc and probs such as trying to find a place to camp that is away from other people (try camping in Europe and you'll know what I mean) to people trying to stop campfires,

I'm a conservationist, that is I'd like to conserve what we have for future generations. I want my kids to have the enjoyment of camping on a river and not having another soul within 10 kms. I want them to have a big campfire and enjoy the ambiance that it brings.

Not the type of conservation the Greens serve up (dont do anything that resembles fun cause well try and stop it)

You go to any reserve on a long weekend and what do you find, your camping next to someone cause there isn't enough space, Theres plenty of space just too many people.

Yup I'm a big fan of a cull or at least limiting population to a intelligent level, Kangaroos get culled when they breed up

Cheers Wilko
0
FollowupID: 754875

Follow Up By: D200Dug- Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 13:00

Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 13:00
OK Wilco

While I agree with you in principal about overpopulation what are you suggesting we do about the real problems that we are facing right now ?

Any attempt to reduce or restrict population is going to meet with an enormous religious and human rights backlash.

Sorry to bring religion into this and it is not a religious debate it is just a fact that Catholics many right wing fundamentalists and most Muslim sects are very pro large population growth as they see it as a way to produce more believers and followers of their religion.

Any attempt to introduce compulsory birth control in any wester democracy would be fought by both right wing voters who fear government control and left wing voters who would see it as an infringement of human rights ?

Apart from reducing our consumption and reducing our levels of pollution what other options do we really have.


I agree that most people here are true conservationists, I have no love for radical greenies they make it far to easy for others to dismiss the real message and the real problems we are all facing.

I prefer to listen to what science is saying rather than some nutter beating a drum and wearing crystals in their dreadlocks :-)
0
FollowupID: 754879

Follow Up By: Wilko (Parkes NSW) - Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 13:08

Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 13:08
Agreed it would be hard if downright impossible to start knocking people off. One way of doing it would be to stop immigration to Aust, our population would start going backwards real quick.

My main point is where do we stop, would 40 mil in aust be enough What bout 100 mil?, China has a one baby policy, Do we want that for the entire world? It may come one day if we dont take the hard choices.

Cheers Wilko.

ps Cull Queenslanders 1st
0
FollowupID: 754881

Follow Up By: D200Dug- Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 13:39

Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 13:39
Stopping immigration into Australia is not going to stop the problem is it ?

What are your solutions or suggestions for dealing with the real and increasing problem of global climate change ?

It is a world wide problem what action would you suggest be taken by the world right now ?

( I do have a plan for knocking off people but I doubt it would ever actually be approved as politicians and the rich would be the first to go :-)

Just sort of joking of course !!!!!
0
FollowupID: 754887

Reply By: MEMBER - Darian, SA - Saturday, Mar 03, 2012 at 19:32

Saturday, Mar 03, 2012 at 19:32
From what I read, intense weather cycles (hot and cold) lasting 1000's of years can be identified in the historic records, at times when there were either none, or few, humans around ! What caused those events ? I'm told that in SA, 20,000 years ago we could have walked across what we call St Vincent's gulf next to Adelaide - dry as a bone. Who caused that ? The answer could be ...."its all natural" :-o).
PS: About 95M years back, didn't the gulf of Carpentaria just about reach about 1000k further down into Qld - if so, why is all that water gone ?
AnswerID: 479318

Follow Up By: landseka - Saturday, Mar 03, 2012 at 21:13

Saturday, Mar 03, 2012 at 21:13
"PS: About 95M years back, didn't the gulf of Carpentaria just about reach about 1000k further down into Qld - if so, why is all that water gone ?"

That water is tied up as ice at the Poles! It is melting though so soon it will be back and it will be a short trip from Brisbane to get to the Tip.

Cheers Neil
0
FollowupID: 754775

Follow Up By: Member Andys Adventures - Saturday, Mar 03, 2012 at 23:24

Saturday, Mar 03, 2012 at 23:24
The ice at the poles are water in it's most expanded state, when they melt the void left behind is less. Put a block of ice in a bucket with some water in it so it floats and measurer the depth, let the ice melt and then take another measurement, it will be less.
We (humans) haven't been on this planet long enough to do any damage. Yes we pollute but so did the cave man burning wood (carbon), volcano's put out more CO2 than all the worlds CO2 today.
Global warming what rubbish it just nature.
0
FollowupID: 754797

Follow Up By: Allan B (Member, SunCoast) - Saturday, Mar 03, 2012 at 23:59

Saturday, Mar 03, 2012 at 23:59
Sorry Andy, that's not right. The ice floats because it has expanded with freezing and now has a density about 0.92 of water, and so has an increased volume about 1.09 times water. Accordingly the block of ice not only floats in the water but is not entirely submerged with about 9% of the ice above the water.

When the ice melts its volume decreases and it now occupies the same volume as the water it displaced, that is, the volume of the ice under water. The portion of ice that floated above the water compensates exactly for the "shrinkage" of the ice below the water.

So there is no change in the height of the water after the ice melts.

Mind you, I have no idea what this has to do with the subject.

Cheers
Allan

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 754798

Follow Up By: Bazooka - Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 00:35

Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 00:35
You've got the stirrer of the month award with this gem Andy: 'We (humans) haven't been on this planet long enough to do any damage.' ROFL.

I had an inkling that you were burleying the waters until I got to the volcano bit and then I knew you were stirring for sure because as we all know man produces an estimated 100-130 times the C02 of volcanoes annually. It's currently number 70 of 173 on the list of debunked climate skeptics claims.

Skeptical Science

There's some interesting stuff there about ice ages as well. Good Sunday reading in rainy weather.

0
FollowupID: 754799

Follow Up By: mikehzz - Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 07:32

Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 07:32
The average thickness of the ice in Antarctica is 3 kilometres. That's a lot of ice and it's not floating. I needed to say that :-)
0
FollowupID: 754811

Follow Up By: Member - Mfewster(SA) - Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 09:02

Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 09:02
Thank you mikehzz. Over quite a while when this topic comes up people here (and also particularly Alan Jones on radio) have sprouted the nonsense that as ice floats, the level of oceans wont change because due to ice melt.Sure, that's true of floating ice and everyone remebers the experiments with ice in a bucket they did at school that proved this. Clearly these people haven't really read their stuff. Yep, it isn't the floating ice that is the problem, it is the massive ice deposits over land (which completely dwarf the floating stuff) that are the issue.There is so much of it over the landmass at the south pole that it flattens the curve of the globe. And this is now melting at an accelerating rate.
0
FollowupID: 754815

Follow Up By: D200Dug- Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 11:22

Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 11:22
the current concern is not so much the change ( there have always been changes in the past ) but the SPEED of the change. In the history of geological records there has never been this degree of rapid change before.

The changes we have seen in the last 150 years should usually take place over 150,000 years.

It is man made and I think if you mess something up there is a degree of responsibility to fix it up.

If we do something all it will cost is money. if we don't do anything it may cost a lot more.

Humans have already been responsible for the greatest mass extinction of species event in the history of the earth.

Why not at least try to do better in the future ?
0
FollowupID: 754846

Follow Up By: Member - Mfewster(SA) - Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 11:38

Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 11:38
I agree with you on the speed of change being the issue. It is something that all those who comfortably want to deny the issue by talking about previous changes keep overlooking. The long period of most (not all) previous changes meant that life could slowly adapt to the changes. Where there was fast change (as after meteor impact or huge volcanic events) the results were catastrophic for the life forms that existed at that time. While to us a couple of hundred years seems very slow, in geological and environmental time frames, it is very very fast indeed.
0
FollowupID: 754853

Follow Up By: D200Dug- Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 11:50

Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 11:50
It is so disappointing that they are willing to criticize something they have not taken the time to understand.

I would not argue engine maintenance with a trained mechanic because they understand how the system works.

I would ask questions, I would want explanations, but saying an expert is wrong and a non expert is right seems rather foolish to me.

Saying 98% of experts are wrong and 100% of the scientific evidence is wrong and some media tycoons and oil producers are right seems downright foolish.

But that is just the way I look at it.

Perhaps the guys making billions of dollars do have our best interests at heart and the scientists on measly wages are trying to rip us off ?

http://www.ucanews.com/2012/02/29/rich-people-are-less-likely-to-be-honest-says-study/

Perhaps those scientists manipulated this study as well ?
0
FollowupID: 754857

Follow Up By: get outmore - Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 15:53

Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 15:53
actually in the past most climate changes have been rapid when they have occured

this is a large part of many of the later extinctions amongs animals pre humans or a bit later before they became the formidable force they are now
0
FollowupID: 754908

Follow Up By: Member - Mfewster(SA) - Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 16:18

Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 16:18
FollowupID: 754908 Submitted: Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 15:23
get outmore posted:
actually in the past most climate changes have been rapid when they have occured

this is a large part of many of the later extinctions amongs animals pre humans or a bit later before they became the formidable force they are now.

The really fast changes have been from "impact events" or massive volcanic eruption periods (much bigger than anything we have had in recent recorded time) and where there has been one of these the results were catastrophic for the life forms around at that time. There have also been many other changes that were very slow to take place and the life forms evolved along with them. The current rate of change (in geological time frame terms) is very fast and can only be compared with the impact events. None of the natural phenomenon that caused the non impact climate changes appears to be at work at the moment so it is simply crazy to disregard the warnings coming from scientists from every country.
0
FollowupID: 754909

Follow Up By: D200Dug- Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 17:59

Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 17:59
Get out more Can you perhaps post a link or some supporting evidence for your claims I would be interested to see where similar sudden events have happened and what the resulting effects have been on the environment.

you state that "most" climate changes have been rapid

Is that rapid in human terms or in geological terms ?

many thanks and I look forward to your reply and supporting materials
0
FollowupID: 754926

Reply By: Member - Jack - Saturday, Mar 03, 2012 at 19:36

Saturday, Mar 03, 2012 at 19:36
Can't have Global Warming until we get through the Ice Age we were supposed to get in the late 1980s. When that comes I will become a believer. Until then it is just a computer model that helps to keep the Greenies in the papers and the limelight.

Jack
The hurrieder I go, the behinder I get. (Lewis Carroll-Alice In Wonderland)

Member
My Profile  My Position  Send Message

AnswerID: 479319

Follow Up By: get outmore - Saturday, Mar 03, 2012 at 19:59

Saturday, Mar 03, 2012 at 19:59
Your confusing ice age with the necleur winter we were supposed to get in the 80s
0
FollowupID: 754761

Follow Up By: 2000 Red Rodeo - Saturday, Mar 03, 2012 at 20:09

Saturday, Mar 03, 2012 at 20:09
I thought the Ice Age was supposed to be during the 70's

Who knows? I guess that's the point - no one does.. But there seams to be a lot of money to be made pretending you do have all the answers.

If this rain (that Tim Flannery predicted we would never see again) doesn't stop I'll have to start building an ark.

0
FollowupID: 754765

Follow Up By: Member - Greg A - Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 08:13

Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 08:13
Wait for me, Noah!!
0
FollowupID: 754813

Reply By: Robin Miller - Saturday, Mar 03, 2012 at 20:15

Saturday, Mar 03, 2012 at 20:15
"Global Warming or Armagedon"

Global warming is Armagedon you stirrer Tony.

I still find it hard to believe that some don't understand the cyclic notion of whats happening with its underlying nett increase in temps and randomness.

I guess they have never washed the dishes and seen the water getting slowly more polluted.
Robin Miller

Member
My Profile  Send Message

AnswerID: 479323

Reply By: mikehzz - Saturday, Mar 03, 2012 at 20:28

Saturday, Mar 03, 2012 at 20:28
Global warming....is that where the temperature all summer has been in the 20's instead of the 30's? My idea of warming is different to that....but I'm no scientist :-)

AnswerID: 479328

Reply By: Bazooka - Saturday, Mar 03, 2012 at 21:38

Saturday, Mar 03, 2012 at 21:38
Even with all the rain about you do have to very careful with sunstroke, or so it seems.
AnswerID: 479334

Reply By: Gnomey - Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 08:50

Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 08:50
Same old drivel. It would be amusing if it wasn't so serious. Maybe it's time to shift our attention from what causes global warming to what causes denial of it.

For many it's clearly a case of not wanting to hear about anything that interferes with their god given right to keep doing what they're doing. For others it's that mixed with an inability to understand what climate is as opposed to weather. For some here ignorance of the difference approaches the wilful.

It will be your grandchildren if not your children who reap the whirlwind of your knuckleheadness. Nothing to cheer, laugh or stir about, I would have thought. Give it rest.

Mark
AnswerID: 479363

Follow Up By: D200Dug- Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 11:33

Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 11:33
In my own opinion climate change denial is akin to child abuse.

We have a responsibility to protect the future generations.

How many of us would leave a campsite looking worse after we have stayed there and left.

The world is our campsite, it is time we all started to think of it like that and put some effort into cleaning up after ourselves.
0
FollowupID: 754850

Follow Up By: Bazooka - Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 15:31

Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 15:31
You've hit the nail on the head there Mark. There's plenty of information about - including scientific rebuttals of the nonsense which regularly bobs up (often unchallenged) on Exploroz . It's human nature to bury our heads in the sand and say it's someone's else's problem especially when the fix involves a hit to the pocket or some restriction to how we live and play. Marine parks (which have been supported at federal level by all parties) are another classic example where vested interests have attempted to whip up hysteria.

Nonsense is a fair description for the large majority of climate change sceptics' claims because they are mostly either factually incorrect (the volcanoes, the globe is actually cooling, etc) or have no evidentiary basis. Worse still they are intentionally misrepresentive and dressed up as pseudo-science in order to mislead the gullible and confuse others who are genuinely interested but don't have the time to dig deeply.

The contribution of volcanoes to atmospheric CO2 is nothing more than a red herring in any case. If they didn't exist the problem would be reduced but the fact is they do and there's nothing 'man' can do about them. We can however do something about our own FAR bigger contribution to greenhouse.
0
FollowupID: 754904

Reply By: MEMBER - Darian, SA - Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 09:38

Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 09:38
Good to see Tim Flannery mentioned - has Tim bobbed up anywhere lately ?

and.... thanks for getting us going Tony - we all feel much better :-o).
AnswerID: 479373

Reply By: Member - Doug T (NT) - Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 09:38

Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 09:38
I love listenning to this bloke, 4 parts to the series.



.
gift by Daughter

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

AnswerID: 479374

Follow Up By: Member - Doug T (NT) - Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 10:28

Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 10:28
I have added all 4 parts to my webpage HERE

.
gift by Daughter

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 754829

Follow Up By: Member - Witchdoctor - Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 10:34

Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 10:34
If the science is so strong why is it that when one questions the science, they are branded a sceptic. We are all given a brain to use & questioning is just part of utilising our intelligence.
If they cannot handle scrutiny they have something to hide.

Im thinking its all about the dollar & nothing else.

Cheers
0
FollowupID: 754831

Follow Up By: Allan B (Member, SunCoast) - Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 10:39

Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 10:39
Questions...... or challenges?

Cheers
Allan

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 754832

Follow Up By: D200Dug- Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 11:41

Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 11:41
Witchdoctor

you can question the science all you like but eventually you need to take a degree of responsibility and look at the answers that are being given.

The science is out there it is sound and repeated tested like no other science theory has ever been tested.

IF one of the major oil, energy, companies or corporations could come up with some conclusive science based repeatable verifiable evidence to disprove the theory of climate change ( and you have to understand about science and theories to get how this works ) don;t you think they would have been shouting it from the rooftops ?

Instead they run whisper campaigns they use tricks and spread doubt

If they have the scientific proofs then why have they not produced them ?

That is how science works.

( I for one would love to see that climate change is not a problem and that we made a mistake, nothing would make me happier than to know we did not need to worry about this. Unfortunately the science does not show that )
0
FollowupID: 754854

Follow Up By: Member - Mfewster(SA) - Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 11:52

Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 11:52
Doug, that really is drivel. Just have a look at some of the other posts that bloke makes. He is a pro big business commentator who has a lash at anything and everything he feels threatens the good old USA business establishment. He has zilch expertise in this subject, but his other connections are clear as crystal.
Incidentally, I hope everyone saw the tape of the meeting between mining executives and Lord Monkton (who runs a very semilar line to this bloke). Monkton quite happily discussing tactics and how the mining industry could warp and controil the debate. He didn't know it was being recorded. And sure enough, shortly thereafter, Gina Rinehart started buying up newspaper shares.
0
FollowupID: 754859

Reply By: D200Dug- Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 11:28

Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 11:28
Ocean Acidification Rate May Be Unprecedented, Study Says
ScienceDaily (Mar. 1, 2012) — The world's oceans may be turning acidic faster today from human carbon emissions than they did during four major extinctions in the last 300 million years, when natural pulses of carbon sent global temperatures soaring, says a new study in Science. The study is the first of its kind to survey the geologic record for evidence of ocean acidification over this vast time period.

More at:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/03/120301143735.htm


Do we want to risk this happening because of our actions ?

Even if it was a 50/50 risk is it worth taking ?

People trust the scientists who make new drugs, we trust the scientists who give us clean drinking water and safe foods, why do so many people not trust the science on climate change ?
AnswerID: 479404

Follow Up By: Member - John and Val - Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 13:57

Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 13:57
"People trust the scientists who make new drugs, we trust the scientists who give us clean drinking water and safe foods, why do so many people not trust the science on climate change ?"

Do they really. Pharmaceutical companies employ many scientists who make drugs and they are not generally well regarded in the trustworthy stakes. Thalidomide ring a bell?
Did we trust the scientists who proposed putting recycled effluent into drinking water - no that idea got voted out. Or those scientists who advocate GM food - no, activists get in quick and destroy trial plots to save us all from trustworthy scientists.

Scientists are human like all of us and open to the same mistakes, temptations, exaggerations and pressures that everyone else is. And I've been involved in and around science and scientists for long enough to have seen plenty of examples of that. Why would "climate change scientists" be any different?

Cheers,

Val.
J and V
"Not everything that can be counted counts, and not everything that counts can be counted."
- Albert Einstein

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 754892

Follow Up By: D200Dug- Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 14:32

Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 14:32
So you are saying if you get sick you do not take medications because they were made by untrustworthy scientists ?

You have devised and made your own water filtration system ( not using any previous scientific discoveries ) because science cannot be trusted ?

You eat only what foods you gather from the natural environment because you fear evil scientists are trying to poison you ?

Unless you go to these kind of extremes you trust science in your every day life.

EVERY DAY

Yes science and scientists make errors yes there are mistakes and frauds BUT remembering that climate change is the probably second most investigated scientific theory in the history of science and that 98% of all scientists support it 99.9% of all climate related scientists support it and 100% of the published and peer reviewed research supports it then is it unreasonable to suspect that on the simple basis or rational probabilities given there is no scientific evidence to the contrary that it may actually be true ?

The only theory that has been more challenged is the Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection.

It also has massive amounts of supporting evidence and many people who do not believe in it because of very unscientific reasons.


0
FollowupID: 754895

Follow Up By: D200Dug- Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 14:36

Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 14:36
Thalidomide is a classic case

It was and remains a very useful drug

It was misused by some people

Science based research identified there was a problem and stopped the problem from getting any worse.

Thalidomide was one case that happened in the 1960s

It is now 2012 How many other similar failures in the system can you point to in the 40 years that have passed ?

How many good useful life saving drugs have come out in the last 40 years developed and tested by scientists ?
0
FollowupID: 754896

Reply By: mikehzz - Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 13:52

Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 13:52
I'm all for looking after future generations and being environmentally responsible BUT.......the Earth's climate has ALWAYS changed. They dug up a snap frozen mammoth with food still in its mouth...the change must have seemed quick to that mammoth. What are now deserts used to be tropical forests. Trying to stop climate change is impossible. Arguing that humans are not responsible in some way is stupidity because we are part of the ecosystem and therefore anything we do will impact the system. It's just a matter of how much the impact is.
Lot's of people hate change. They are in for a rude shock, things will change whether the environmentalists have their way or not. My advice is to sit back and enjoy the ride, but do avoid throwing your rubbish out the window.
AnswerID: 479425

Follow Up By: D200Dug- Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 21:52

Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 21:52
"but do avoid throwing your rubbish out the window."

I think you will find that is exactly what we are being asked to do here.

We are being asked to stop throwing rubbish into the environment.

To stop throwing our rubbish out the window.

It is a simple enough proposition to understand, we are part of the environment, what we do has an effect on the environment.


It is estimated that we are ADDING an estimated 3.2 billion ( 3,200,000,000 ) metric tons of Co2 to the atmosphere annually that is not the total of what we produce it is just what is added to the already overloaded levels in the atmosphere EVERY year and that is JUST Co2 not all the greenhouse gasses.

All science and scientists are asking is that we reduce the amount of rubbish being thrown out the window and pumped into our environment.

Can someone explain to me in simple terms what the problem is with trying to clean up a mess we have made?




0
FollowupID: 754961

Reply By: pop2jocem - Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 17:46

Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 17:46
Soooo having read and tried to understand all the pro and con arguments I am still not sure if I should buy a Nissan or a Toyota and put an Engel or a Waeco into it.
Oh and will I still need to apply for a permit to cross the Nullabor???


Cheers
Pop
AnswerID: 479452

Reply By: Member - Mfewster(SA) - Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 21:36

Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 21:36
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-03/calls-for-seawalls-as-ocean-swallows-torres-strait-islands/3866564

I do hope everyone has caught up on this news item from today's ABC. And similar reports have been coming in from right across the tropic belt over the last few years. It isn't imagination. And before anyone gets in to tell us that water falls to a level and that therefore increases in ocean depth will be evenly spread - no they woeldn't be. Eventually yes, but the centrifugal force of the earth means it will first show up around the tropics.
AnswerID: 479483

Follow Up By: D200Dug- Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 23:23

Sunday, Mar 04, 2012 at 23:23
You have to ask, is it really worth the risk?

That possibly the vast majority of scientists are actually telling the truth and that perhaps the rich and powerful media and energy barons are telling the lies ?


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


The world's oceans are turning acidic at what could be the fastest pace of any time in the past 300 million years, even more rapidly than during the rapid emission of carbon 56 million years ago, say scientists.

Looking back at that bygone warm period in Earth's history could offer help in forecasting the impact of human-spurred climate change, say the authors of a review of hundreds of studies of ancient climate records published in the journal Science.

Quickly acidifying seawater eats away at coral reefs, which provide habitat for other animals and plants, and makes it harder for mussels and oysters to form protective shells. It can also interfere with small organisms that feed commercial fish like salmon.

More at :


http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/03/02/3444215.htm
0
FollowupID: 754969

Reply By: Member - Doug T (NT) - Thursday, Mar 08, 2012 at 10:41

Thursday, Mar 08, 2012 at 10:41
You know I have read through all these replies, why...because it is an interest I share with you and rest of the worlds population. People, scientists , advocates for and against, Computer models, Me, but I can tell you that no matter what we do as humans will not affect the Earth, it has and always will look after itself, take the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico for instance, yes it was a disaster in mans mind but go back ..if we could, in 100 years or a 1000 years time and you won't see any part of it, man cannot control nature, or weather. If you go up to 35,000 feet in the air you can't even see us unless there was a consolidated group of a few 1000 wearing yellow hats. When I say the world can look after itself take the huge meter impacts it has sustained over the millions of years, even here in Australia with Acraman, Wolf Creek, Liverpool, Kelly West, Gosses Bluff, Woodleigh , Spider, Goyder, Lawn Hill, just to name a few, in South Africa there was a hit that created a crater over 450 Klms ,the results of that alone would have been far greater than all the worlds Nuclear arsenal all at once. As a kid I can remember my Mother saying about Maralinga Tests, "They'll blow the Earth apart" so see people back then new nothing about just what the Earth can take and sustain, so when I hear all this dribble about Climate Change and melting ice I find I just cannot accept it because I'm a realist. Yes I realise everyone has a right to their own beliefs.
If you would care to check out my Meteor Impact webpage that I have researched quite extensivly then clickHERE .


.
gift by Daughter

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

AnswerID: 479866

Follow Up By: Member - Doug T (NT) - Thursday, Mar 08, 2012 at 10:47

Thursday, Mar 08, 2012 at 10:47
And here's something else for you to chew on,


To the nearest whole number, the percentage of the world’s energy that comes from wind turbines today is: zero. Despite the regressive subsidy (pushing pensioners into fuel poverty while improving the wine cellars of grand estates), despite tearing rural communities apart, killing jobs, despoiling views, erecting pylons, felling forests, killing bats and eagles, causing industrial accidents, clogging motorways, polluting lakes in Inner Mongolia with the toxic and radioactive tailings from refining neodymium, a ton of which is in the average turbine — despite all this, the total energy generated each day by wind has yet to reach half a per cent worldwide.
If wind power was going to work, it would have done so by now. The people of Britain see this quite clearly, though politicians are often wilfully deaf. The good news though is that if you look closely, you can see David Cameron’s government coming to its senses about the whole fiasco. The biggest investors in offshore wind — Mitsubishi, Gamesa and Siemens — are starting to worry that the government’s heart is not in wind energy any more. Vestas, which has plans for a factory in Kent, wants reassurance from the Prime Minister that there is the political will to put up turbines before it builds its factory.

This forces a decision from Cameron — will he reassure the turbine magnates that he plans to keep subsidising wind energy, or will he retreat? The political wind has certainly changed direction. George Osborne is dead set against wind farms, because it has become all too clear to him how much they cost. The Chancellor’s team quietly encouraged MPs to sign a letter to No. 10 a few weeks ago saying that ‘in these financially straitened times, we think it is unwise to make consumers pay, through taxpayer subsidy, for inefficient and intermittent energy production that typifies onshore wind turbines’.

Putting the things offshore may avoid objections from the neighbours, but (Chancellor, beware!) it makes even less sense, because it costs you and me — the taxpayers — double. I have it on good authority from a marine engineer that keeping wind turbines upright in the gravel, tides and storms of the North Sea for 25 years is a near hopeless quest, so the repair bill is going to be horrific and the output disappointing. Already the grouting in the foundations of hundreds of turbines off Kent, Denmark and the Dogger Bank has failed, necessitating costly repairs.

In Britain the percentage of total energy that comes from wind is only 0.6 per cent. According to the Renewable Energy Foundation, ‘policies intended to meet the EU Renewables Directive in 2020 will impose extra consumer costs of approximately £15 billion per annum’ or £670 per household. It is difficult to see what value will be got for this money. The total carbon emissions saved by the great wind rush is probably below 1 per cent, because of the need to keep fossil fuels burning as back-up when the wind does not blow. It may even be a negative number.

America is having far better luck. Carbon emissions in the United States fell by 7 per cent in 2009, according to a Harvard study. But the study concluded that this owes less to the recession that year than the falling price of natural gas — caused by the shale gas revolution. (Burning gas emits less than half as much carbon dioxide as coal for the same energy output.) The gas price has fallen even further since, making coal seem increasingly pricey by comparison. All over America, from Utah to West Virginia, coal mines are being closed and coal plants idled or cancelled. (The US Energy Information Administration calculates that every $4 spent on shale purchases the same energy as $25 spent on oil: at this rate, more and more vehicles will switch to gas.)

So even if you accept the most alarming predictions of climate change, those turbines that have ruined your favourite view are doing nothing to help. The shale gas revolution has not only shamed the wind industry by showing how to decarbonise for real, but has blown away its last feeble argument — that diminishing supplies of fossil fuels will cause their prices to rise so high that wind eventually becomes competitive even without a subsidy. Even if oil stays dear, cheap gas is now likely to last many decades.

Though they may not admit it for a while, most ministers have realised that the sums for wind power just don’t add up and never will. The discovery of shale gas near Blackpool has profound implications for the future of British energy supply, which the government has seemed sheepishly reluctant to explore. It has a massive subsidy programme in place for wind farms, which now seem obsolete both as a means of energy production and decarbonisation. It is almost impossible to see what function they serve, other than making a fortune from those who profit from the subsidy scam.

Even in a boom, wind farms would have been unaffordable — with their economic and ecological rationale blown away. In an era of austerity, the policy is doomed, though so many contracts have been signed that the expansion of wind farms may continue, for a while. But the scam has ended. And as we survey the economic and environmental damage, the obvious question is how the delusion was maintained for so long. There has been no mystery about wind’s futility as a source of affordable and abundant electricity — so how did the wind-farm scam fool so many policymakers?

One answer is money. There were too many people with snouts in the trough. Not just the manufacturers, operators and landlords of the wind farms, but financiers: wind-farm venture capital trusts were all the rage a few years ago — guaranteed income streams are what capitalists like best; they even get paid to switch the monsters off on very windy days so as not to overload the grid. Even the military took the money. Wind companies are paying for a new £20 million military radar at Brizlee Wood in Northumberland so as to enable the Ministry of Defence to lift its objection to the 48-turbine Fallago Rig wind farm in Berwickshire.

The big conservation organisations have been disgracefully silent on the subject, like the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which until last year took generous contributions from the wind industry through a venture called RSPB Energy. Even journalists: at a time when advertising is in short supply, British newspapers have been crammed full of specious but lucrative ‘debates’ and supplements on renewable energy sponsored by advertising from a cohort of interest groups.

And just as the scam dies, I find I am now part of it. A family trust has signed a deal to receive £8,500 a year from a wind company, which is building a turbine on land that once belonged to my grandfather. He was canny enough not to sell the mineral rights, and the foundations of the turbine disturbs those mineral rights, so the trustees are owed compensation. I will not get the money, because I am not a beneficiary of the trust. Nonetheless, the idea of any part of my family receiving ‘wind-gelt’ is so abhorrent that I have decided to act. The real enemy is not wind farms per se, but groupthink and hysteria which allowed such a flawed idea to progress — with a minimum of intellectual opposition. So I shall be writing a cheque for £8,500, which The Spectator will give as a prize to the best article devoted to rational, fact-based environmental journalism.

It will be called the Matt Ridley prize for environmental heresy. Barring bankruptcy, I shall donate the money as long as the wind-gelt flows — so the quicker Dave cancels the subsidy altogether, the sooner he will have me and the prizewinners off his back.

Entrants are invited forthwith, and a panel of judges will reward the most brilliant and rational argument — that uses reason and evidence — to gore a sacred cow of the environmental movement. There are many to choose from: the idea that wind power is good for the climate, or that biofuels are good for the rain forest, or that organic farming is good for the planet, or that climate change is a bigger extinction threat than invasive species, or that the most sustainable thing we can do is de-industrialise.

My donation, though significant for me, is a drop in the ocean compared with the money that pours into the green movement every hour. Jeremy Grantham, a hedge-fund plutocrat, wrote a cheque for £12 million to the London School of Economics to found an institute named after him, which has since become notorious for its aggressive stance and extreme green statements. Between them, Greenpeace and Worldwide Fund for Nature (WWF) spend nearly a billion a year. WWF spends $68 million a year on ‘public education’ alone. All of this is judged uncontroversial: a matter of education, not propaganda.

•••

By contrast, a storm of protest broke recently over the news that one small conservative think-tank called Heartland was proposing to spend just $200,000 in a year on influencing education against climate alarmism. A day later, the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, with assets of $7.2 billion, gave a grant of $100 million to something called the ClimateWorks Foundation, a pro-wind power organisation, on top of $481 million it gave to the same recipient in 2008. The deep green Sierra Club recently admitted that it took $26 million from the gas industry to lobby against coal. But money is not the only reason that the entire political establishment came to believe in wind fairies. Psychologists have a term for the wishful thinking by which we accept any means if the end seems virtuous: ‘noble-cause corruption’. The phrase was first used by the Chief Inspector of Constabulary Sir John Woodcock in 1992 to explain miscarriages of justice. ‘It is better that some innocent men remain in jail than the integrity of the English judicial system be impugned,’ said the late Lord Denning, referring to the Birmingham Six.

Politicians are especially susceptible to this condition. In a wish to be seen as modern, they will embrace all manner of fashionable causes. When this sets in — groupthink grips political parties, and the media therefore decide there is no debate — the gravest of errors can take root. The subsidising of useless wind turbines was born of a deep intellectual error, one incubated by failure to challenge conventional wisdom.

It is precisely this consensus-worshipping, heretic-hunting environment where the greatest errors can be made. There are some 3,500 wind turbines in Britain, with hundreds more under construction. It would be a shame for them all to be dismantled. The biggest one should remain, like a crane on an abandoned quay, for future generations to marvel at. They will never be an efficient way to generate power. But there can be no better monument to the folly of mankind

.
gift by Daughter

Lifetime Member
My Profile  My Blog  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 755304

Follow Up By: Allan B (Member, SunCoast) - Thursday, Mar 08, 2012 at 11:09

Thursday, Mar 08, 2012 at 11:09
Doug, That must take the prize as the longest posting ever on ExplorOz.

One thousand, eight hundred and sixty one words. Whew!

Cheers
Allan

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 755309

Follow Up By: Allan B (Member, SunCoast) - Thursday, Mar 08, 2012 at 11:27

Thursday, Mar 08, 2012 at 11:27
"Earth, it has and always will look after itself"

Maybe so, but will mankind be a part of the outcome?

Cheers
Allan

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 755313

Reply By: The Landy - Thursday, Mar 08, 2012 at 11:16

Thursday, Mar 08, 2012 at 11:16
On the question of climate change, I simply pose the question – can we afford to get it wrong?

Sure, the earth will take care of itself, and I’ve no doubt there is a large cycle that occurs between ice-age, and warming, problem is we are polluting the air we breathe more and more each and every day, and the demands we are putting on our ability to feed ourselves due to over-population is exponentially increasing at an alarming rate; the two issues are inter-linked.

Nature has a great way of dealing with such issues, we’ll simply pollute and eat ourselves out of existence, possibly sooner than many think!

But what seems to prevail is the notion that it isn’t our problem, and to hell with those that follow in our footsteps – Mankind’s arrogance is the seed from which our downfall has sprouted...

Phew...better now! The Landy...
AnswerID: 479868

Follow Up By: Allan B (Member, SunCoast) - Thursday, Mar 08, 2012 at 11:21

Thursday, Mar 08, 2012 at 11:21
I would certainly agree with those 145 words.

Cheers
Allan

Member
My Profile  My Blog  My Position  Send Message

0
FollowupID: 755312

Sponsored Links

Popular Products (13)