-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Global Warming
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
To do it they would have to prove that consciousness is a physical phenomina.If it is,then it is theoretically possible.Computers can do physical things(if advanced enough)
Guys like Dennet believe the 'mind' is physical.Guys like Harris don't.I'm on Harris side.
<shrug>
Guys like Dennet believe the 'mind' is physical.Guys like Harris don't.I'm on Harris side.
<shrug>
Yeah,it's not proved either way.The ones against,are philosophers in the main(so for them it's not provable scientifically).But if Dennet is right(he's more a scientist than a philosopher these days) then something like 2050 is not out of the question.
This dude is probably the closest thing to an expert on the subject currently,as far as i can tell.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers
He's fitty/fitty.Aussie too.Doing us proud.
this guy is right up there too.I'm not sure where he stands on it.I think he's in the Dennet camp.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose
Just having a quick read of Penrose's wiki page he thinks it's quantum relatedf so he would say it is theoretically possible(i think.) i haven't read any of his books.
This dude is probably the closest thing to an expert on the subject currently,as far as i can tell.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Chalmers
He's fitty/fitty.Aussie too.Doing us proud.
this guy is right up there too.I'm not sure where he stands on it.I think he's in the Dennet camp.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose
Just having a quick read of Penrose's wiki page he thinks it's quantum relatedf so he would say it is theoretically possible(i think.) i haven't read any of his books.
B
Bill James
Guest
More myths debunked:
Myths on CO2 food miles
March 10, 2008
LAST week federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Tony Burke, exposed the "food miles" campaign as "nothing more than protectionism". Burke is right, but beneath such transparent protectionism, the food miles emperor is still naked.
Food miles is the latest chic campaign for environmental activists to reduce CO2 emissions. But perhaps counterintuitively, if activists and consumers want to reduce their CO2 footprint they may want to support their food travelling longer, not shorter, distances.
The principle of the food miles campaign is simple. There is a significant - and, activists argue, an unnecessary - CO2 footprint associated with transporting produce. The solution is therefore to avoid these emissions by "buying local" and exercising caution when purchasing imports.
Late last year a Melbourne organisation, Community Environment Park, released a report drawing attention to the carbon footprint of food purchased by Melbourne consumers. The report unsurprisingly outlined the large footprint for much of the food bought in Melbourne's supermarkets, regardless of whether it was produced domestically or internationally.
It may seem logical that the further the distance a product travels, the bigger its CO2 footprint. But as Trade Minister, Simon Crean yesterday pointed out, this view is simplistic.
First, only a full life-cycle carbon footprint can accurately measure total emissions. A life-cycle assessment would require a calculation of the total CO2 emissions from the seeding of crops and the birth of livestock, to their delivery to the consumer.
Second, the fuel efficiency that comes with bulk transport, and the mode of transport itself, need to be factored in. Agricultural products from our region transported by sea to England can produce equivalent emissions as comparable products travelling by road to England from southern Europe.
In his address to the trade ministers' meeting held alongside the UN's Bali climate change summit in December last year, director-general of the World Trade Organisation, Pascal Lamy, made this point clear. Lamy argued that "90 per cent of internationally traded goods are carried by sea. And maritime transport is by far the most carbon-efficient mode of transport, with only 14g of CO2 emissions per tonne-kilometre".
In many cases, a more accurate life-cycle assessment will show that importing food that travels long distances can be better for the environment than producing it locally.
The inputs would not simply be limited to transportation costs, but would also consider such items as fertiliser, electricity, feed, tools and housing.
A recent study done by New Zealand's Lincoln University demonstrated this well. The study looked at the life-cycle carbon footprint of apples, onions and lamb exported to Europe. For all three items, the total energy input per tonne of output was substantially less if the product was produced in NZ and exported to Europe, than if it was produced locally. In the case of lamb, the CO2 emissions were more than four times less.
Third, the food miles campaign ignores the environmental benefits of international trade.
The primary determinant of a product's life-cycle carbon footprint is the level of inputs. The costs of inputs are not ignored by competitive food producers. If a producer successfully reduces these inputs, it will be able to bring its product to market at a lower price, with the added benefit of a smaller footprint. Free markets are environmentally sustainable because they seek the maximum output for the minimum input.
And herein lies the challenge for the Labor Government. Despite Kevin Rudd's general commitment to the efficiency of free markets, many of his MPs are not so sure. Among the ranks of Labor's caucus is a number of protectionists who question the environmental benefits of free trade.
Equally Rudd has a number of climate evangelists who actively support reducing CO2 emissions at all costs.
And following the change of the Senate in July, the Greens are likely to move from the fringe of public policy debate to the centre. The Australian Greens should follow their NZ counterparts. In 2006, co-party leader of the NZ Greens highlighted the Greens' opposition to food miles and argued that environmental activists "need to consider the emissions released during production, not just the transport emissions".
Despite the evidence not stacking up, too many advocates of food miles ignore the complexity of proper accounting for carbon footprints, and instead rely on anti-trade rhetoric to get their message across. And even fewer consider the beneficial role international trade and free markets can play in reducing emissions.
Agriculture is a diminishing but still vital component of the Australian economy. Burke is right to expose the food miles campaign as a front for protectionism and should campaign heavily against it.
Tim Wilson is a director of the IP and Free Trade Unit at the Institute of Public Affairs in Melbourne
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23346290-7583,00.html
Myths on CO2 food miles
March 10, 2008
LAST week federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Tony Burke, exposed the "food miles" campaign as "nothing more than protectionism". Burke is right, but beneath such transparent protectionism, the food miles emperor is still naked.
Food miles is the latest chic campaign for environmental activists to reduce CO2 emissions. But perhaps counterintuitively, if activists and consumers want to reduce their CO2 footprint they may want to support their food travelling longer, not shorter, distances.
The principle of the food miles campaign is simple. There is a significant - and, activists argue, an unnecessary - CO2 footprint associated with transporting produce. The solution is therefore to avoid these emissions by "buying local" and exercising caution when purchasing imports.
Late last year a Melbourne organisation, Community Environment Park, released a report drawing attention to the carbon footprint of food purchased by Melbourne consumers. The report unsurprisingly outlined the large footprint for much of the food bought in Melbourne's supermarkets, regardless of whether it was produced domestically or internationally.
It may seem logical that the further the distance a product travels, the bigger its CO2 footprint. But as Trade Minister, Simon Crean yesterday pointed out, this view is simplistic.
First, only a full life-cycle carbon footprint can accurately measure total emissions. A life-cycle assessment would require a calculation of the total CO2 emissions from the seeding of crops and the birth of livestock, to their delivery to the consumer.
Second, the fuel efficiency that comes with bulk transport, and the mode of transport itself, need to be factored in. Agricultural products from our region transported by sea to England can produce equivalent emissions as comparable products travelling by road to England from southern Europe.
In his address to the trade ministers' meeting held alongside the UN's Bali climate change summit in December last year, director-general of the World Trade Organisation, Pascal Lamy, made this point clear. Lamy argued that "90 per cent of internationally traded goods are carried by sea. And maritime transport is by far the most carbon-efficient mode of transport, with only 14g of CO2 emissions per tonne-kilometre".
In many cases, a more accurate life-cycle assessment will show that importing food that travels long distances can be better for the environment than producing it locally.
The inputs would not simply be limited to transportation costs, but would also consider such items as fertiliser, electricity, feed, tools and housing.
A recent study done by New Zealand's Lincoln University demonstrated this well. The study looked at the life-cycle carbon footprint of apples, onions and lamb exported to Europe. For all three items, the total energy input per tonne of output was substantially less if the product was produced in NZ and exported to Europe, than if it was produced locally. In the case of lamb, the CO2 emissions were more than four times less.
Third, the food miles campaign ignores the environmental benefits of international trade.
The primary determinant of a product's life-cycle carbon footprint is the level of inputs. The costs of inputs are not ignored by competitive food producers. If a producer successfully reduces these inputs, it will be able to bring its product to market at a lower price, with the added benefit of a smaller footprint. Free markets are environmentally sustainable because they seek the maximum output for the minimum input.
And herein lies the challenge for the Labor Government. Despite Kevin Rudd's general commitment to the efficiency of free markets, many of his MPs are not so sure. Among the ranks of Labor's caucus is a number of protectionists who question the environmental benefits of free trade.
Equally Rudd has a number of climate evangelists who actively support reducing CO2 emissions at all costs.
And following the change of the Senate in July, the Greens are likely to move from the fringe of public policy debate to the centre. The Australian Greens should follow their NZ counterparts. In 2006, co-party leader of the NZ Greens highlighted the Greens' opposition to food miles and argued that environmental activists "need to consider the emissions released during production, not just the transport emissions".
Despite the evidence not stacking up, too many advocates of food miles ignore the complexity of proper accounting for carbon footprints, and instead rely on anti-trade rhetoric to get their message across. And even fewer consider the beneficial role international trade and free markets can play in reducing emissions.
Agriculture is a diminishing but still vital component of the Australian economy. Burke is right to expose the food miles campaign as a front for protectionism and should campaign heavily against it.
Tim Wilson is a director of the IP and Free Trade Unit at the Institute of Public Affairs in Melbourne
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23346290-7583,00.html
I'm surprised this thread hasn't kicked off with all the Chairman-voting doomsdayers on here going on about what a great job Garnaut has done and how we must 'save the world'.
For a country that has such a small say in the overall scheme of things when it comes to emissions and climate change, it is ludicrous if the Government go down the path of setting targets before the Copenhagen gig next year, for a start.
Secondly, why commit this country to strict guidelines on emissions, when in reality we could all turn off the machines, not drive our cars, and live in a bloody tent, and it would make no difference to the global climate situation whatsoever.
Why punish this country and its citizens over something we cannot change?
Then you have the economic outlook at present.
Garnaut has said that if we follow his advice, our electricity bills will rise by 37%!
The Chairman was voted in because he said he was committed to helping 'working families'....well, the first people that will suffer under such targets/guidelines are 'working families', who will become 'unemployed families'.
Why would a business spend millions of dollars upgrading equipment to conform to the guidelines when we have countries like India and China not abiding by the guidelines and their labour/materials/services are cheaper as well?
If we sit back now seeing businesses here and there moving offshore, just wait until the Chairman bows to Greens pressure and tries to big note himself once again as a "world leader"....we will see businesses (and therefore jobs) move offshore in their droves.
And to top off Garnaut's report...the usual doomsday prediction:
"If we fail, on a balance of probabilities, the failure of our generation will haunt humanity until the end of time," he said
Please! :spin
For a country that has such a small say in the overall scheme of things when it comes to emissions and climate change, it is ludicrous if the Government go down the path of setting targets before the Copenhagen gig next year, for a start.
Secondly, why commit this country to strict guidelines on emissions, when in reality we could all turn off the machines, not drive our cars, and live in a bloody tent, and it would make no difference to the global climate situation whatsoever.
Why punish this country and its citizens over something we cannot change?
Then you have the economic outlook at present.
Garnaut has said that if we follow his advice, our electricity bills will rise by 37%!
The Chairman was voted in because he said he was committed to helping 'working families'....well, the first people that will suffer under such targets/guidelines are 'working families', who will become 'unemployed families'.
Why would a business spend millions of dollars upgrading equipment to conform to the guidelines when we have countries like India and China not abiding by the guidelines and their labour/materials/services are cheaper as well?
If we sit back now seeing businesses here and there moving offshore, just wait until the Chairman bows to Greens pressure and tries to big note himself once again as a "world leader"....we will see businesses (and therefore jobs) move offshore in their droves.
And to top off Garnaut's report...the usual doomsday prediction:
"If we fail, on a balance of probabilities, the failure of our generation will haunt humanity until the end of time," he said
Please! :spin
i dont know what the answers to this problem of global warming are.What i do know is that Joe the blind miner can see that the environment around us is changing for the worse and quickly.
I cant change what the world does about this ,but i can try to influence what happens in my own back yard
I cant change what the world does about this ,but i can try to influence what happens in my own back yard
I have no fear of global warming.
Kev's in charge.
He'll form a committee to look into it. Again
Kev's in charge.
He'll form a committee to look into it. Again
anyone who believe's in the claptrap they call global warming should do themselves a favour and read a letter that was published in the australian on the 18th of july written by doctor david evans who was the designer for the emissions trading scheme.very interesting reading..
ssstone said:
Stoneman,
Wouldn't be this one by any chance would it?
No smoking hot spot
David Evans | July 18, 2008
I DEVOTED six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia's compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.
FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I've been following the global warming debate closely for years.
When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the old ice core data, no other suspects.
The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon government and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.
But since 1999 new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and by 2007 the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming. As Lord Keynes famously said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"
There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:
1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.
If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.
When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.
Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you'd believe anything.
2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.
3. The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the "urban heat island" effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.
4. The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.
None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.
The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician's assertion.
Until now the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming.
So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.
In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn't noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.
If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don't you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?
The world has spent $50 billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.
What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Labor Government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.
The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy.
Dr David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html
I dunno.
Al Gore said we have a carbon problem.
He's a politician.
So naturally I trust and believe him.
Al Gore said we have a carbon problem.
He's a politician.
So naturally I trust and believe him.
jb03 said:
great man Bolt. Fantastic grasp of moderately simple concepts such as how outliers relate to overall trends. Its like saying every single draftee is a dud beauase they aren't Lance Franklin.
Freezer, re the 'revenue raising' comment. Its simple, a) energy polluters have been able to pollute the air for free, just like chemical companies used to be able to pollute the waterways for free. b) because of this, and combined with the previous (prior to about 1980 that is) lack of knowledge of the compounding cost of the effects has meant that energy was grossly undervalued.
Combine a) and B) and what it means is we have to start paying more for energy. Its very basic stuff.
Liverpool said:
Hows the logic? We are'nt a big country so we shouldn't do anything untill the big ones do? Like a little sheep. Amazing. This is exactly the same thinking that sees our best inventors and researchers going overseas where innovation is embraced.
By your logic, why don't we follow the lead of Indo? Or Russia? they are bigger than us, they must be doing some about all this greenhouse malarkey?
Now I think about it, I don't know why I bothered to write that, anything relating to pure logic sails straight over your head.
tigersnake said:
Well, seeing that you want to give me a lesson in logic, maybe you can exlplain this one:
Australia's greenhouse emissions constitute about 1.5% of global emissions.
We have countries like China, India, USA, and Brazil who do not have to meet any numerical limitation when it comes to emissions under the Kyoto Protocol.
We have countries like China and India who are an attractive source for our manufacturing companies even before we speak about environmental constraints forced upon us here......and you are worried we are losing inventors and researchers to overseas countries?
Please!
By obligating this country to meet targets in the hope (and let's be honest, if the rest of the world doesn't jump on board then we here are wasting our *smile* time!) that the rest of the world will also constrain their economies to meet such targets...then you are putting this country, it's economy, and hence it's citizens under unneeded and unwanted pressure, especially at a time when the global economy is under pressure itself.
Do you really think that countries who give out the other 98.5% of the emissions are going to put their economies and people under pressure just because we do?
:cutelaugh
Do you really want us to go without so much here to limit our pitiful 1.5% of global emissions...which will have what bearing on the globe overall?
We could all live in bloody tents for a year, walk to work...in fact...sit in our tents all day and do nothing and it would make not one iota of difference to the climate.
Now where is the logic in that?
