Global Warming | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • 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

Freezer said:
Inevitable...? ? ?
Click to expand...

Inevitable...!!!

The science is clear that the climate is changing, and I have been convinced that its warming, but its a democracy and you can believe whatever you want.
I just think that whatever charge or tax is put onto energy generators should be used to build infrastructure to offset the efects of climate change rather than just giving it back as subsidies to the energy users.
I don't get how subsidising peoples energy costs will decrease CO2 generated energy use.
 
False calls of consensus, unreliable models and debunking of other models is your contribution to science. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I have yet to see any that satisfies that requirement. If the science was so rock solid, it should be much easier to convince me and the general public. I've come to the realisation that we don't know jack *smile* about climate.
 
billyb#40 said:
Inevitable...!!!

The science is clear that the climate is changing, and I have been convinced that its warming, but its a democracy and you can believe whatever you want.
I just think that whatever charge or tax is put onto energy generators should be used to build infrastructure to offset the efects of climate change rather than just giving it back as subsidies to the energy users.
I don't get how subsidising peoples energy costs will decrease CO2 generated energy use.
Click to expand...
Yes if you are a true believer, you should advocate shutting down all carbon fired power plants. What infrastructure are you referring to?
 
Giardiasis said:
False calls of consensus, unreliable models and debunking of other models is your contribution to science. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I have yet to see any that satisfies that requirement. If the science was so rock solid, it should be much easier to convince me and the general public. I've come to the realisation that we don't know jack sh!t about climate.
Click to expand...

Really really tempting post...but I will resist.

When you actually debunk science as "False calls of consensus, unreliable models and debunking of other models " there is little ground for reasoned argument which I suppose is actually your purpose.

My statement that there have been no peer reviewed objections to human induced climate change published in the scientific literature in the last 15 years which is 100% accurate is even objected by you.

So much science and so much data on this issue, yet you dont engage in any of it. I truly hope you believe these half arsed consiracy theories you are spouting, that would make you merely delusional.

On second thoughts I cant resist your post. Please replace "the science was" with" my head wasn't".
 
This site links to 850 peer review papers that run counter to the AGW hypothesis.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

I dare say many have flaws, just like most scientific journals, but obviously your statement that "no peer reviewed objections to human induced climate change published in the scientific literature in the last 15 years" is on the left side of 100% accuracy.

No I didn't go and read these articles, the point is your assertion is wrong.

What say you about this and your consensus assertion after evidence has proven contrary to your beliefs?
 
lamb22 said:
MLD

As I've said before I dont even vote labor. If you want to label me try 'democrat' but not in any wussy australian incarnation.

I believe in open and accountable government. I believe in checks and balances on power and the westminster system. I believe in a bill of rights guaranteeing freedom of thought, movement, association speech et al.

I beleive an an independant, diverse free press who act as a check on power.

I believe in wealth creation and the distribution of that wealth to maximise happiness and well being in a community.

I am happy that diverse communities such as Bob katter's North Queensland, Oakeys and windsors and crooks electorate or even the Western Sydney bogans get their voices heard and concerned aired.

But finally after striving to get the institutions right and protecting those institutions the exercise of power should be devoted to pursuing fact and evidenced based policy to make us wealthier, healthier, wiser and happier.

Labor are a fair way from the ideal and as such dont get my vote but the realistic altenative in Australia is horrendous. They have abdicated policy to the venal, the stupid and the heartless. They have no vision other than pandering to short term politicval imperatves, are disengenuous and ecomically illiterate.

The attack on the Westminster system started by Howard and his culture wars by brazen politicisation of the public, service, judiciary and the ABC was appalling. Rudd to his great credit avoided similar politicisation by not re-attacking the PS, and appointing merit based directors to the ABC and judges to the High Court.

Australia's greatest problem is the poverty and narrowness of our press efffectively representing the interest of Rupert Murdoch and like minded barons like Stoke, Packer and now Rinehart.

One of the next items on the aganda will be tackling the morass that is the australian media. They know that. That's why they are even more feral than usual.
Click to expand...

It certainly makes life easy when one is convinced that ones opponents are not merely incorrect, but evil.
 
lamb22 said:
Yes obviously inevitable as its already happenning.
Click to expand...

Streak said:
Yeah man. Unfortunately.
Click to expand...

billyb#40 said:
Inevitable...!!!
Click to expand...

If it's inevitable, as the three of you clearly believe it is, how is charging for CO2 emmissions gonna change it...? You do understand what inevitable means, don't you?

What exactly is the tax going to do in order to slow, halt or even reverse this global warming thing, if it's inevitable?

All the money in the fire truckin' universe aint gonna change something that's inevitable.
 
Freezer said:
If it's inevitable, as the three of you clearly believe it is, how is charging for CO2 emmissions gonna change it...?
Click to expand...

I don't believe I made that link. I just said it was inevitable. The Earth is warming, sea levels have risen, and as they rise and warm further that will bring an increase in adverse weather events, ranging from drought to severe storms.

Freezer said:
You do understand what inevitable means, don't you?
Click to expand...

Yeah, I think so. I can't quote you Websters definition straight off the top of my head, but if you'll accept my lay interpretation, then it means it is going to happen with absolute certainty. And it will. As the Earth warms, the sea levels have to rise, and as they rise and get warmer that will bring an increase in adverse weather events, ranging from drought to severe storms.

Freezer said:
What exactly is the tax going to do in order to slow, halt or even reverse this global warming thing, if it's inevitable?
Click to expand...

I didn't say a tax was going to do anything. IMO, the world is already screwed from the perspective of supporting human life well into the future. It doesn't matter what has caused the warming, I think if we were going to meaningfully stop it, a lot of action needed to be taken some time ago with technology that doesn't yet exist. And even if we had done that, I don't know it would have stopped things, maybe delayed them. Global warming is inevitable. If you want to take it to an extreme, in many millions of years from now, the sun will get so big it will swallow the earth. Hopefully the Tigers will have won another flag by then.

Freezer said:
All the money in the fire truckin' universe aint gonna change something that's inevitable.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree. It is inevitable.
 
I have a read of this from time to time but have not been moved to add a comment . I don't think I can add much to some pretty entrenched positions.

However , I have been reading about Thorium after the prodding of a friend of mine . There is a lot of material on it and Australia also has the world's largest know resource of Thorium . There was an interesting article about it in The Australian last October .

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/special-reports/climate-change/climate-change/story-fn5oikwf-1225935583181

I was wondering if anyone here knows a lot about it and has a view ? I have not been an advocate of Nuclear power in the past but find myself softening this view and what I have read about Thorium makes me wonder whether we are not as a country and worldwide missing an opportunity to do something real about the use of coal for power .

An interesting comment in the Australian article was a quote that said " a tonne of the silvery metal produces as much energy as 200 tonnes of uranium, or 3.5 million tonnes of coal". Whilst I don't really understand the science , it also seems to be inherently safer than uranium.

Views ?
 
Sintiger said:
I have a read of this from time to time but have not been moved to add a comment . I don't think I can add much to some pretty entrenched positions.

However , I have been reading about Thorium after the prodding of a friend of mine . There is a lot of material on it and Australia also has the world's largest know resource of Thorium . There was an interesting article about it in The Australian last October .

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/special-reports/climate-change/climate-change/story-fn5oikwf-1225935583181

I was wondering if anyone here knows a lot about it and has a view ? I have not been an advocate of Nuclear power in the past but find myself softening this view and what I have read about Thorium makes me wonder whether we are not as a country and worldwide missing an opportunity to do something real about the use of coal for power .

An interesting comment in the Australian article was a quote that said " a tonne of the silvery metal produces as much energy as 200 tonnes of uranium, or 3.5 million tonnes of coal". Whilst I don't really understand the science , it also seems to be inherently safer than uranium.

Views ?
Click to expand...

Can't comment on Thorium particularly, although it does sound intriguing.

My views on nuclear power have softened in recent years too in the light of the AGW issue. I found this comment interesting tho-

Bill James said:
Nuclear: Its clean but not so grean. Its largely academic in Australia for the next 20-30 years anyway. The smallest commercial units in the world are around 1000MW. The biggest single coal turbine we have in Australia is Cogen Creek at about 750-780MW. The reality for nukes are unless they are large they are expensive. We can't accomodate a large one in our network yet because of redundancy issues if it drops out. Let me explain. Put 500 people on a Jet with four turbines, we all feel ok if one drops out. Put 500 people on a Jen with a single tail mounted turbine and if it sputters our day takes a turn for the worse. Big power units are the same. The ability to cover them in a small capacity large extent network like the east coast is tough.
Click to expand...

Made me wonder if we couldn't work-out some sort of regional co-operative nuclear power generation scheme where we'd supply Indonesia and perhaps PNG to increase demand. It'd reduce the inclination of Indonesia to build nuclear plants in a geologically (and perhaps poitically) unstable environment. Perhaps we could partly cover the cost in our aid budget somehow?
 
Giardiasis said:
http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2011/3/the-intelligent-voter-s-guide-to-global-warming
Click to expand...

Quadrant really.

Poets , accountants and chemists really

Geoffrey Lehmann is a poet. He was formerly a partner of a major international accounting firm and Chairman of the Australian Tax Research Foundation.

Peter Farrell is Founder and Executive Chairman of Resmed Inc, foundation Director and former Professor of the Graduate School of Biomedical Engineering at the University of New South Wales, Chair of the Executive Council, Division of Sleep Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Member Visiting Committee, Whitaker College of Life Sciences MIT.

*smile* Warburton is Chairman of Westfield Retail Trust, Magellan Flagship Fund Ltd and the Board of Taxation and a Director of Citigroup Pty Ltd and of the Smith Family of which he is also Chairman-elect. He is a former Chairman and CEO of Du Pont Australia and New Zealand.
 
lamb22 said:
Quadrant really.

Poets , accountants and chemists really

Geoffrey Lehmann is a poet. He was formerly a partner of a major international accounting firm and Chairman of the Australian Tax Research Foundation.

Peter Farrell is Founder and Executive Chairman of Resmed Inc, foundation Director and former Professor of the Graduate School of Biomedical Engineering at the University of New South Wales, Chair of the Executive Council, Division of Sleep Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Member Visiting Committee, Whitaker College of Life Sciences MIT.

*smile* Warburton is Chairman of Westfield Retail Trust, Magellan Flagship Fund Ltd and the Board of Taxation and a Director of Citigroup Pty Ltd and of the Smith Family of which he is also Chairman-elect. He is a former Chairman and CEO of Du Pont Australia and New Zealand.
Click to expand...
Hehe, poet. Well at least you can't argue he is on the payroll of big oil :hihi
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
< Russia Invades Ukraine | Ben Roberts Smith >
Official PRE merch now on Redbubble!
Top Bottom