Global Warming

[Liverpool]

Supporters of global warming like to insinuate that all scientists are in agreeance with each other about how devastating climate change is and how it's all our fault. Clearly they're not.

Exactly right Freezer.

In December last year at the Bali conference, 100 scientists (which included reviewers for the IPCC) wrote this open letter:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/reprint/UN_open_letter.pdf

It seems this letter as well as your above "Boffins cool on global warming" article which declares 400 scientists are sceptical of this IPCC model, clearly show that NOT all scientists are on the IPCC bandwagon (not even some past members of the IPCC agree with them now).
Surely these numbers and the credibility of the scientists show that the evidence the IPCC has bandied-around is not irrefutable at all....or as irrefutable as some people claim it is.

 

[Tiger74]

In terms of making Solar and Wind base load power, this will only happen if technology achieves one of two goals:

1) finds a way to efficiently store power

2) finds a way to make the sun shine at night or the wind blow 100% of the time

Solar and Wind have a role, but they will be a part of a mosaic, they cannot be base load until a way of storing power cheaply is found.

 

[newyorktiger]

of course a republican senator from oklahoma (and most southern republicans) would say that. The majority of people that voted for him think the world was created in 7 days, and have (allegedly) scientific evidence to back this up. That constituency is also waiting for "Reckoning." GW also believes in the Reckoning, so conspiracy theorists can ponder on that...

 

[TigerGoneNorth]

I just hope The Reckoning comes after Round 22 this year. :-\

 

[tigersnake]

Supporters of global warming like to insinuate that all scientists are in agreeance with each other about how devastating climate change is and how it's all our fault. Clearly they're not.

I don't 'support' global warming. I just know that the data saying its happening is far stronger than the data saying it doesn't. You'll never get total agreement on anything. Science is about debate. The climate change side has all but won the debate. We alrerady had this out in earlier pages anyway.

The key here is that people like you or Peter Walsh or whoever scoff is merely because you don't like the implications. If the majority of the world scientists believed the secret to long life and tranqility and environmental nirvana was a shot of rum for breakky, an A9X torana, regular coffee and cinnamon donuts and crispy battered barramundi, you wouldn't be trying to dig up kooky dissenters then would ya? NOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooo

 

[tigersnake]

Do you have any articles that show this? I haven't seen any.

Electricity is very hard to 'store' -it's the main reason why we aren't already all driving around in electric cars.

Furthermore it drops in power over distance.
I haven't formed the opinion on anything Howard has every said on the matter.My opinion has mainly been formed on discussions with my Dad(recently retired)who spent his whole life as an electrical engineer desgining transformers for Australia's,and some SE Asian countries, power grids.
I agree coal sequestration is a ludicrous idea,as i said.
Base load,can't be "switched on and off" at whim.Thats why it's referred to as base load.

I saw it on a TV doco evo is not a dirty word. Also a couple of researchers in the field I know reckon the above. Its mainly about the dough. Further to the point I just mad on Freezers comment. The right are all for the hydrogen car, but its at least 15 years off, and sequestration, 15 years, but not solar storage, which a lot reckon is the same or less.

Its all about ensuring the interests of entrenched powererful corporate interests, whi9chI don't need to point out to you I know. Thankfully though, I'm optomistic, although the conservatives have succeeded in poo poo ing and delaying action for 2 decades, we may now be getting some where. Whether it will be enough or fast enough though is highly doubtful.

 

[Freezer]

I don't 'support' global warming. I just know that the data saying its happening is far stronger than the data saying it doesn't. You'll never get total agreement on anything. Science is about debate. The climate change side has all but won the debate. We alrerady had this out in earlier pages anyway.

No-one's disputing global warming is happening. The assumption that we can reverse the process by turning off a few lights, etc, is what's under question. As an aside to this, I think most people on here agree we need to continue "looking after our own backyard" - it's just that some of us don't necessarily think that's going to help climate change.

The key here is that people like you or Peter Walsh or whoever scoff is merely because you don't like the implications. If the majority of the world scientists believed the secret to long life and tranqility and environmental nirvana was a shot of rum for breakky, an A9X torana, regular coffee and cinnamon donuts and crispy battered barramundi, you wouldn't be trying to dig up kooky dissenters then would ya? NOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooo

:-\

Don't quite get where that's going.

 

[Dyer'ere]

No-one's disputing global warming is happening. The assumption that we can reverse the process by turning off a few lights, etc, is what's under question.

So, suppose we all agree that we don't know. As a conservative ;D I think we should err on the side of safety and work to minimise the effects we can identify.

Am I missing something? If not where's the argument?

Is it so hard to work out what to do when you don't know?

 

[Freezer]

So, suppose we all agree that we don't know. As a conservative ;D I think we should err on the side of safety and work to minimise the effects we can identify.
Am I missing something? If not where's the argument?
Is it so hard to work out what to do when you don't know?

I think my issue is with people who say/believe we can stop global warming completely (that's certainly what the propagandists would like us to believe). I agree that we should try to minimize the effect we are having, but in the big picture, I think that's exaggerated.

 

[ssstone]

I don't 'support' global warming. I just know that the data saying its happening is far stronger than the data saying it doesn't. You'll never get total agreement on anything. Science is about debate. The climate change side has all but won the debate. We alrerady had this out in earlier pages anyway.

The key here is that people like you or Peter Walsh or whoever scoff is merely because you don't like the implications. If the majority of the world scientists believed the secret to long life and tranqility and environmental nirvana was a shot of rum for breakky, an A9X torana, regular coffee and cinnamon donuts and crispy battered barramundi, you wouldn't be trying to dig up kooky dissenters then would ya? NOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooo

:rofl :roflthe key is here bs,is that if i had 1 a9x torrie in the shed i would be a rich man. and therefore might have the time to trawl countless pages of guff on thr net to come up with a conclusion that 90% of the hottest days recorded were early last century BEFORE industry kicked off...... and i would also have the time to record the thoughts and recolection;s of a couple of old country boys that say whilist our drought is a humdinger it aint nothing to what theyve seen in their 70 + years,and tell me is it because EVERY single continet has had higher than average rain that has caused floods or is it the fact that 1998 was the hottest year on record that it is now "CLIMATE CHANGE" not ""global warming"? it is a crock of *smile*,designed to suck in morons and take money outa thier pockets.chicken little the sky is not falling.

 

[TigerGoneNorth]

Interesting that the Climate Change induced rush for bio fuels has led to a massive fall in land usage for food production which in turn has led to predictions of "starvation on a global scale" (The Times yesterday). We've already seen some significant increases in the price of various foodstuffs such as wheat.

A clear example of the risks in the logic of "who knows what climate change will mean - we should do everything we can now regardless".

Climate change policies must be balanced alongside a number of issues.

 

[Tiger74]

Interesting that the Climate Change induced rush for bio fuels has led to a massive fall in land usage for food production which in turn has led to predictions of "starvation on a global scale" (The Times yesterday). We've already seen some significant increases in the price of various foodstuffs such as wheat.

A clear example of the risks in the logic of "who knows what climate change will mean - we should do everything we can now regardless".

Climate change policies must be balanced alongside a number of issues.

This is an issue, but current high food prices are due to a combination of a spike in demand due to Asia booming, and the cost of oil raising the price of logistics, packaging, additives, and growing the actual food.

The drought in Australia which has effected global export market supply for grains and dairy commodities has had a bigger effect than this issue.

 

[TigerGoneNorth]

...and with Asia booming (as it will continue to for quite some time) the world's capacity to produce food to meet their demand is being structurally impacted by the push for biofuel production. The drought in Australia is compounding the issue I agree but it doesn't explain the extent of price increases by itself.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3500954.ece

The problem is that in politics it's trendy to be seen to be doing something, anything, that is deemed to be positive in addressing climate change and other issues are struggling to be considered.

 

[Tiger74]

One other thing you need to remember is we are coming off a period of very low commodity prices. For a long time, things such as sugar, coffee, grains, and dairy were point blank dirt cheap. A rebound was inevitable.

On supply, it can only grow so much more. There is only so much arible land and water available, so indefinite expansion is not possible.

Some may say this is a reason to ban bio-fuels, but I disagree. It puts a proper price on the cost of using the land, and if the farmer gets more money selling to BP and General Mills, good on them.

If food prices go up, people will finally have to start making some hard decisions about how many mouths to feed, and hopefully this will be the start to the end of the population boom globally. Even if biofuels were banned, population growth is outstripping long term food production growth capacity. Better to wake up from this now than later.

 

[evo]

The japanese futurist(forgotten his name but he seems well respected in this field) believes that 14 billion will be platau "man' will reach,population wise, and it will remain at or around that level if/until we find another planet to also inhabit.

Around 2050-2060 AD

"May you live in interesting times"

 

[Disco08]

Is there a way I can be frozen until they find another planet for us to inhabit? I could pick a whole new footy team to support then. I'd say the Tiges might be a chance by 2050 but that seems a bit optimistic.

 

[evo]

I don't think you' ll even need to be frozen,Duckman.

The other gameplan by some of these futurists is to focus on the problem of artificial intelligence and working out a way to download your consciousness into a computer,before your body dies.

That way 'you' can live on.Except the 'world' will be a cyber reality where everyone else is like 'you' as well-kinda like The Matrix.I'm sceptical they can actually do it ,ever.But I've just given up smoking,just in case.Need to live for another 40 years probably before this is a reality. ;D

At lreast it wouldn't be too taxing on the enviroment.Just need one big mainframe computer.And just pray no-one kicks out the plug.Plug guy would be the Devil,webmaster would be 'God'

Either that or brain in a vat stuff.

 

[Six Pack]

The japanese futurist(forgotten his name but he seems well respected in this field) believes that 14 billion will be platau "man' will reach,population wise, and it will remain at or around that level if/until we find another planet to also inhabit.

Around 2050-2060 AD

"May you live in interesting times"

Suzuki?

 

[Bill James]

Please find attached Exhibit A, which serves as an irrefutable proof of global warming and an irresistable reason for taking no action.

http://www.toilette-humor.com/global_warming.html

 

[evo]

Suzuki?

I think it's Michio Kaku I'm thinking of,maybe.