Global Warming

[evo]

LMAO at the La Rouche crazy-they should've arrested him on the spot for crimes against humanity.

I wonder if he went home with the Malthusian women in the back row. ;D

Where on earth did they find that audience.Bizzare.

 

[RemoteTiger]

All the indigenous people of each continent have one thing in common - they all had their own version of - "Look after the land and the land will look after you"
Just maybe there is a lesson there for us clever technologically advance people hmmmm!............My opinion only...RT

If some of these indigenous people really were hellbent on "looking after the land", why do we constantly see and hear this:

[b]ANNE BARKER[/b]: Like most communities in the Northern Territory Santa Teresa is in fact a 'dry town' where alcohol is already banned.
But almost on a weekly basis usually on pay day groups of men head into Alice Springs 80 kilometres away and bring back takeaway grog to Santa Teresa's boundary, and drink themselves to oblivion.

Just outside the Santa Teresa gates, Mal Brough was shown a huge wasteland of empty cans and bottles almost as far as the eye can see.

MAL BROUGH: Throughout there you can just see all the cans glistening. All the way around, all amongst all the trees. So it's not just on the road, people just drive off in there and have a binge.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2007/s1971248.htm

I saw it on TV, and a pity I can't find a photo of the absolute disgusting mess that these indigenous people leave their drinking areas (which is anywhere) in.
If people are under the impression that indigenous people show a healthier respect for the land than other non-indigenous people, then they are sorely mistaken. There are just as many litterbugs and a "don't care attitude" from all races.

A couple of points -

1) I was referring to the indigenous people who were here before we were - the ancestors of only some of todays indigenous people - not those indigenous people of today who have been manipulated by our way of life. Like you I have little time for these as they whinge and *smile* and moan about the white-mans wrong doings yet they are only too happy to enjoy our way of life - particularly when they rarely work for it.

2) I have seen white men just as bad on the grog and the mess they leave for someone else to clean up is arguably worse.

The third world deserves to use the same energy resources we in the 1st world use - but can we help them via our technology to decrease the CO2 emmissions their use would normally create.

I have no problem helping third-world countries, but there has to be something in it for first-world countries also.

You really are a child of the 70's and 80's where the WIIFM attitude was really nutured

We shouldn't be a charity case for the rest of the world's incompetencies.
These third-world countries have to also show that they have some pride and want to do THEIR bit for the environment as well, as I don't see the point of people going in there to help just because we think they 'deserve' it.

Do you ever stop to think they have not had the opportunity we have - hence their station in life - in the world.
I agree they have to want to get better while we help them - but what comes first? Our helping them or them showing us they want to get better - if it is them showing us they want to get better how do they do that - particularly in the circumstances they are in.

You do have a conscience I have seen it in your other posts.......

 

[Tiger74]

I have no problem helping third-world countries, but there has to be something in it for first-world countries also.
We shouldn't be a charity case for the rest of the world's incompetencies.
These third-world countries have to also show that they have some pride and want to do THEIR bit for the environment as well, as I don't see the point of people going in there to help just because we think they 'deserve' it.

I would rather give them subsidies or aid to promote clean energy than keep lending money we allow them to default on anyway. We lend them money they spend it on whatever. We get energy improvements, we benefit from lower pollution and better fish/agri conditions in our own waters/lands

 

[jb03]

I though it was very convincing - I'm sold. Climate Change nee Global Warming is a con.

 

[Freezer]

My feelings on the whole thing are that while man made emmissions have gone through the roof and we are producing a lot more than we used to, to suggest that turning off a few lights, recycling and slowing the production of these emmissions is going to reverse climate change, seems a little daft. I agree that we need to do everything we can to continue these initiatives (we all need to look after our own backyards) but I think the issue of climate change is fundamentally out of our hands. Mother nature is bigger than us all.

Then again, maybe I'm the one being daft.

 

[Tiger74]

little changes make a difference

look how London improved when they stopped throwing the rubbish out the window onto the streets

 

[Liverpool]

A couple of points -

1) I was referring to the indigenous people who were here before we were - the ancestors of only some of todays indigenous people - not those indigenous people of today who have been manipulated by our way of life. Like you I have little time for these as they whinge and b!tch and moan about the white-mans wrong doings yet they are only too happy to enjoy our way of life - particularly when they rarely work for it.

2) I have seen white men just as bad on the grog and the mess they leave for someone else to clean up is arguably worse.

Remote,
I agree with you 100% that there are equally poor behaviour from ALL races when alcohol is involved.
However, we do not know how the indigenous people would have treated the land, if they had developed industry themselves or technology themselves, BEFORE any outsiders came to these shores. The land was mostly untouched purely because the Aborigines themselves were living a stone-age existance.

You really are a child of the 70's and 80's where the WIIFM attitude was really nutured

It's not really a "whats in it for me" attitude.....but let's be honest, we had "Live Aid" back in the early 1980s, and here we are 20+ years later, and are these African countries any better off? Are there still kids dying from famine? People starving to death?
Of course.
So where did all that money and aid go that the first-world countries donated?
Well...maybe guns and weapons to keep civil wars going, might be a good start.
Therefore, why should first-world countries fly the humanitarian flag of peace, goodwill, and trying to help these people....when obviously, they do not want to help themselves, and if anything, encourage wars to keep going with child-soldiers and illegal arms.

My feelings on the whole thing are that while man made emmissions have gone through the roof and we are producing a lot more than we used to, to suggest that turning off a few lights, recycling and slowing the production of these emmissions is going to reverse climate change, seems a little daft. I agree that we need to do everything we can to continue these initiatives (we all need to look after our own backyards) but I think the issue of climate change is fundamentally out of our hands. Mother nature is bigger than us all.

Then again, maybe I'm the one being daft.

Freezer,
You're not daft mate....spot on the money, I reckon... :clap
From earlier in this thread:

Actually, myself and the others on here aren't too far different......we all recognise that the Earth is warming...the only difference is that they deem humans as the main culprits, whereas I think its Mother Nature.

As for remedies to the situation, we should continue what we are doing.....if we can save water, or save power, or save energy...then that can only be good.
If recycling and energy-saving lower-emission ways of doing things are exercised, then great.

Where myself and the others differ again, is that in the short-term I think 'green' initiatives are great for everyone and their communities, however in the loooooong-term (millions of years), it will lead to the same conclusion if we hadn't done a bloody thing.
The others, because they feel human intervention is the cause for the global warming phenomena, must also believe that changing our ways will reverse what the climate is doing. That is a very bold idea.

 

[tigersnake]

I though it was very convincing - I'm sold. Climate Change nee Global Warming is a con.

a con it ain't ostrich boy. You can say you believe the majority of the world competent scientists are wrong,but they are'nt trying to con anyone. You can say the implications are annoying or irritating if you have a hummer and a ford bronco in the air-conditioned garage, I can understand that. But con? nuh. Thats just rejecting news you don't like regardless of its merit. Call a spade a spade jb

 

[ssstone]

now lets see. london in flood during summer,eastern vic under water also,snow falling from orange in n.s.w to the dandenongs. GLOBAL WARMING MY ASS .drought,fire ,flood ,is how it has gone 4 eons.

 

[Liverpool]

now lets see. london in flood during summer,eastern vic under water also,snow falling from orange in n.s.w to the dandenongs. GLOBAL WARMING MY ASS .drought,fire ,flood ,is how it has gone 4 eons.

Hey Stoney...that wouldn't be that thing called "mother nature" i've been yapping on about for the last 16 pages, is it?

...and don't forget the best start to the ski-season for 17 years also. :clap

 

[ssstone]

now lets see. london in flood during summer,eastern vic under water also,snow falling from orange in n.s.w to the dandenongs. GLOBAL WARMING MY ASS .drought,fire ,flood ,is how it has gone 4 eons.

Hey Stoney...that wouldn't be that thing called "mother nature" i've been yapping on about for the last 16 pages, is it?

...and don't forget the best start to the ski-season for 17 years also. :clap

now come on livers the "mother nature" theory doesnt produce guilt,bad political policy,sell fish wrappers to the gullible or grab more monies(rip off) thru tax to appease the vocal MINORITY,whilist achieveing zero.however it does keep the peasants living in fear.

 

[Jools]

Remember the Millenium bug when 2000 was to tick over and all computers would go haywire? I suspect a few people made plenty out of that one. Anyone know whether this was for real? I remember all sorts of things being checked, even things that didn't have computer chips or clocks in them.

 

[mld]

Hmm. This is the usual instance of people plucking points out without relevance. It is the trend that is important, not the individual data. If you want to claim cold days as proof against global warming you have to accept any hot days as proof for global warming. I guess it is probably easier to get personal and slag off people you don't agree with though, seems to be the path of the self-appointed 'sceptic' true believers.

 

[jb03]

Hmm. This is the usual instance of people plucking points out without relevance. It is the trend that is important, not the individual data. If you want to claim cold days as proof against global warming you have to accept any hot days as proof for global warming. I guess it is probably easier to get personal and slag off people you don't agree with though, seems to be the path of the self-appointed 'sceptic' true believers.

The opposite argument also holds true.

 

[Tiger74]

Remember the Millenium bug when 2000 was to tick over and all computers would go haywire? I suspect a few people made plenty out of that one. Anyone know whether this was for real? I remember all sorts of things being checked, even things that didn't have computer chips or clocks in them.

Was for real, just that billions was spent fixing the critical vulnerabilities so the problem was removed

 

[tigersnake]

Hmm. This is the usual instance of people plucking points out without relevance. It is the trend that is important, not the individual data. If you want to claim cold days as proof against global warming you have to accept any hot days as proof for global warming. I guess it is probably easier to get personal and slag off people you don't agree with though, seems to be the path of the self-appointed 'sceptic' true believers.

this is true. but as you say the trend is all that matters. Also part of the overall trend is that some areas will get colder as ocean and wind currents change.

Stony and Liverpools', and JBs by association, logic, yet again, is 'I saw a black cat therefore all cats are black'.

Also Liverpool ans stone you've never once responded to or ackowledged the Ozone example. The scientific theory held that the hole in the ozone layer was caused for chloroflourocarbons which were used in fridges and spraybacks.

These chemicals were banned and substituted, hole in ozone layer is rapidly closing. All in the space of 15-20 years. Proof that human activity has significant effects on the atmostphere, and also that it can be fixed. Take home message for youse, we still have fridges and spraypacks.

Also, also, again, why the digging in of heels? I really don't get it. If the worlds scientists are correct, the pointy heads at Oxford at Harvard that is, and we act to stop wasting energy, our great grandkids get a better environment. If you, stoney and JB are correct, and that bearded scientist up at Townsville, whats lost? Less pollution? An oil supply that lasts a few extra hundred years? Geez, real tragedy.

 

[baktiger]

Remember the Millenium bug when 2000 was to tick over and all computers would go haywire? I suspect a few people made plenty out of that one. Anyone know whether this was for real? I remember all sorts of things being checked, even things that didn't have computer chips or clocks in them.

Was for real, just that billions was spent fixing the critical vulnerabilities so the problem was removed

Yeah, there were some critical systems, but I happen to know quite a few people that
creamed heaps of $$$ out of it as a big scam. It wasn't as big a deal as it was made out
to be.

 

[Liverpool]

Also Liverpool ans stone you've never once responded to or ackowledged the Ozone example. The scientific theory held that the hole in the ozone layer was caused for chloroflourocarbons which were used in fridges and spraybacks.

These chemicals were banned and substituted, hole in ozone layer is rapidly closing. All in the space of 15-20 years. Proof that human activity has significant effects on the atmostphere, and also that it can be fixed. Take home message for youse, we still have fridges and spraypacks.

More than happy to respond:

Note Tigersnake, that Antarctica had it's coldest winter since 1979....looks like Mother Nature turned off the 'global warming' heater this year.
Also, that the cold weather has produced certain clouds that destroy ozone....maybe Mother Nature at work again?

The 2006 hole reached its maximum size of 29 million square kilometers (11.3 million square miles) on September 24, 2006, according to NASA. This is very close to the record ozone hole size of September 10, 2000, when it covered 29.2 million square kilometers (11.5 million square miles). The depth of the hole, however, was greater in 2006 than in 2000. the amount of lost ozone amounted to 40 million tons on October 2, beating 2000's record of 39 million tons. The lowest ozone value of 2006 was 102 Dobson units, compared to the record low of 88 Dobson units (observed in 1993). The graph below, taken from NOAA's Climate Prediction Center, compares the 2006 ozone hole size with previous years. The large size of this year's hole is due to the coldest winter weather since 1979 over Antarctica. The exceptional cold led to the formation of more Polar Stratospheric Clouds (PSCs) than usual. These clouds act as ozone destroying chemical factories. The U.N. Environment Program (UNEP) said in August 2006 that the ozone layer would likely return to pre-1980 levels by 2049 over much of Europe, North America, Asia, Australasia, Latin America and Africa. In Antarctica, the agencies said ozone layer recovery would likely be delayed until 2065

http://www.wunderground.com/education/holefaq.asp#howbig

Tha Antarctic hole widens (BBC, 2000):

The World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), a United Nations body, says satellite observations of the sunlit part of Antarctica show an average decrease of about 30% in the total amount of ozone.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/903436.stm

NASA, 2003:

Is the ozone hole getting bigger?
It isn't really a "hole", but a large decrease in the total amount of ozone overhead. It is truly a large decrease over Antarctica at certain times of the year, but there are significant general reductions in ozone elsewhere, including the Northern Hemisphere. The "hole" and the general reductions elsewhere are not getting better yet. We expect that things will improve, starting early in the next century.

http://kids.earth.nasa.gov/faq/index.htm

From October 2006:

This year's Antarctic ozone hole is the biggest ever, government scientists said Thursday. The so-called hole is a region where there is severe depletion of the layer of ozone — a form of oxygen — in the upper atmosphere that protects life on Earth by blocking the sun's ultraviolet rays.
Scientists say human-produced gases such as bromine and chlorine damage the layer, causing the hole. That's why many compounds such as spray-can propellants have been banned in recent years.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/news/archive/2006/10/19/national/w122532D89.DTL


All the above from scientists from NASA and the United Nations...probably the same scientists that you and others have used to try and 'prove' your global warming theories in previous posts.
Ah, the irony... ;D

 

[Liverpool]

Hmm. This is the usual instance of people plucking points out without relevance. It is the trend that is important, not the individual data. If you want to claim cold days as proof against global warming you have to accept any hot days as proof for global warming. I guess it is probably easier to get personal and slag off people you don't agree with though, seems to be the path of the self-appointed 'sceptic' true believers.

mld,
I don't think I got personal at all or slagged anyone off. ???
I have my opinion on the issue and disagree with others, so what?
If anyone has copped personal slaggings on some of these threads, it has usually been myself.
So stop your sooking and get on with the thread.

 

[tigersnake]

The Nasa one is 2003, the BBC one 2000. I read a new Scientist article a couple of months ago that the trend showed a decrease, and it was happening faster than thought, but along the lines of what was expected. The UN staement of August 2006 you put there is in line with the article I read.

My point stands. a) We have an effect on macro environmental factors, b) following that, we can act to fix problems, c) Our lifestyles won't be substantively affected, ie, we'll still be able to do all the stuff we do now.