Global Warming

[lamb22]

whats really sad is that hitler youth morons like yourself cant accept that there are scientists that arent on the new religion payroll that refute GLOBAL WARMING,still it makes me laugh that in the 70s i was taught at school that the world was cooling and that we were heading for an ice age,*smile*ing funny i reckon

Lots of hyperbole there shane stone. Name calling probably doesn't help. The world cooling consensus is a bit of a myth. Scientists have been concerned about warming for a fair while although there were some contrary signs in the 70s which a minority of scientists postulated could lead to cooling. The consensus very quickly settled on warming.

The science is settled on warming, the contribution co2 makes to it and the human contribution to co2 increases. There are issues relating to rate of warming in the future which scientists keep working through but on a lot of criteria their previous projections were conservative and have been exceeded so I dont think we should easily discount increases of 2 degrees or above without mitigation.

If you read the IPCC reports a lot of work goes into 'adaption' as strategies as the difficulty in turning it around is acknowledged.

On another topic - Go Kingy!!

Cheers

 

[ssstone]

Lots of hyperbole there shane stone. Name calling probably doesn't help. The world cooling consensus is a bit of a myth. Scientists have been concerned about warming for a fair while although there were some contrary signs in the 70s which a minority of scientists postulated could lead to cooling. The consensus very quickly settled on warming.

The science is settled on warming, the contribution co2 makes to it and the human contribution to co2 increases. There are issues relating to rate of warming in the future which scientists keep working through but on a lot of criteria their previous projections were conservative and have been exceeded so I dont think we should easily discount increases of 2 degrees or above without mitigation.

If you read the IPCC reports a lot of work goes into 'adaption' as strategies as the difficulty in turning it around is acknowledged.

On another topic - Go Kingy!!

Cheers

ha what consenus? its simple if you are so worried about co2,,,, stop breathing,quoteing the ippc is like quoteing gratton ,drumroll after payroll,
i cconcur,GO KINGY

 

[dukeos]

Good arguments; hard to see past the quality reasoning here.

Im all for cutting co2 and pollution in general. Just makes the earth a better place to live.

But as science will dictate, there is absolutely no point of Australia doing anything to halt climate change, unless the big boys lead.

I think we should help educate the masses in China and India, that if they look after the environment, their lives will improve

 

[dukeos]

The world cooling consensus is a bit of a myth. Scientists have been concerned about warming for a fair while although there were some contrary signs in the 70s which a minority of scientists postulated could lead to cooling. The consensus very quickly settled on warming.

The science is settled on warming, the contribution co2 makes to it and the human contribution to co2 increases. There are issues relating to rate of warming in the future which scientists keep working through but on a lot of criteria their previous projections were conservative and have been exceeded so I dont think we should easily discount increases of 2 degrees or above without mitigation.
Cheers

Far from an expert. But..... is there not some sort data around that suggests the warming will actually triger a cooling?? Therefore, instead of Global Warming, it was changed to Climate Change??

 

[mld]

I think we should help educate the masses in China and India, that if they look after the environment, their lives will improve

I'm not sure the masses living hand to mouth would look kindly on affluent westerners educating them about looking after the environment.

 

[dukeos]

I'm not sure the masses living hand to mouth would look kindly on affluent westerners educating them about looking after the environment.

I agree. Until those countries identify it as a bigger problem, including the US, we may as well put it on the back burner.

I know per capita, we consume way too much, and as Ive said before, Im all for cutting pollution. But until the big players decide to get serious, its just not going to happen.

 

[Giardiasis]

Dukeos, what makes you say we consume too much?

 

[dukeos]

Dukeos, what makes you say we consume too much?

Per capita, I think we are 10th. Most of the countries above us are either freezing cold or stinking hot. We need way better public transport not only metro but provincial as well.

 

[tigersnake]

Good arguments; hard to see past the quality reasoning here.

the sarcasm is dismaying, but predictable. The point stands. The only reason the science is being questioned is because people don't like the implications. Therein lies the nub of what is going on.

The point I was making was that if people like what science comes up with, everyone (being the general public) says 'you bewdy'. (except other scientists, who do constantly question) If you can't accept that that (ie. only acting on scientific evidence that we like), is a fundamentally flawed approach to run world affairs, well, there is nothing I can do about that.

 

[tigersnake]

Dukeos, what makes you say we consume too much?

This is what we're dealing with.

 

[Giardiasis]

Per capita, I think we are 10th. Most of the countries above us are either freezing cold or stinking hot. We need way better public transport not only metro but provincial as well.

So who cares if we are 10th? What is wrong with consumption? You don't see the link between consumption and prosperity? Or are you of the belief that rich people are rich at poor people's expense?

 

[Giardiasis]

the sarcasm is dismaying, but predictable. The point stands. The only reason the science is being questioned is because people don't like the implications. Therein lies the nub of what is going on.

The point I was making was that if people like what science comes up with, everyone (being the general public) says 'you bewdy'. (except other scientists, who do constantly question) If you can't accept that that (ie. only acting on scientific evidence that we like), is a fundamentally flawed approach to run world affairs, well, there is nothing I can do about that.

Hehe dismaying. The science is questioned because the science is exaggerated, flawed, dodgey and strongly linked to political influences. For example we don't properly understand the role of feedbacks yet this is the fundamental factor in the AGW argument. Without a strong positive feedback mechanism there is no AGW. Then you've got people like Al Gore and Tim Flannery coming out with bogus claims, it certainly doesn't help convince people.

Now people are told they are going to have to pay billions to stop AGW, well then being able to demonstrate what their money will deliver for them is important. Funny thing is no-one is very keen to answer this question.

 

[tigersnake]

First , you really don't have any idea what you're talking about. It seems people don't wanna be convinced, so they won't be, (see previous point).

Second, the 'political influence' chestnut never ceases to amaze me. Do you honestly reckon a few white lab-coated nerds, albiet very intelligent and experienced nerds, have more political clout than the global oil industry, the mining industry, the electrical appliance industry, the electricity industry, the car industry? Fair dinkum. Do you know anything about politics or economics?

Third, there won't be 'paying of billions'. People aren't being told that, unless you listen to shock jocks in which case that is your problem. Lets just say, for arguments sake, that people were suddenly unanimously convinced, and said, 'lets fix it.' (looking less and less likely). Old industries would be phased out, not shut down. Any job losses would far outweighed by the development of new industries which are champing at the bit. History shows any major economic transition, inspite of conservative doomsdayers, results in rejuvenation and vibrancy, not recession. (eg. abolition of slavery, the rise of the car, the internet. )


Fourth, all these points will go in one ear and out the other.

Again,all this is about is charging people money to pollute the air, just like being charged to take rubbish to the landfill. Years ago a lot of people thought that was crazy too.

 

[Giardiasis]

First: Thanks for that observation, it is returned in kind I assure you. But that doesn't really change anything now does it? People don't want to be convinced? Anyone can make a statement I guess.

Second: It is clearly not a few white lab-coated nerds against big bad oil. There are many people that stand to make millions from carbon trading, not to mention the bureaucratic dream of regulation and the political dream of spending other people's money for them. Not to mention people with a stake in green industry and green politics.

Third: No you are right, it will cost trillions. Er, what is the difference between phased out and shutdown? So you think "phasing out" productive industries and replacing them will less productive industries (I'd argue not productive)
will be a boom for employment? Which one of us knows nothing about economics actually? Comparing taxing productive industry to the introduction of technology and the abolishment of slavery is strange to say the least.

Fourth: Indeed.

When do you propose we start charging people for breathing out carbon dioxide? We charge people to remove their personal waste via sewerage and water treatment, so what's crazy about charging for their CO2 out of their mouths?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

When do you propose we start charging people for breathing out carbon dioxide? We charge people to remove their personal waste via sewerage and water treatment, so what's crazy about charging for their CO2 out of their mouths?

This point alone well and truly confirms tigersnake's first point. Wilful ignorance is never pretty.

As for your stated views on overconsumption, I personally have no problem with the idea per se. I actually wish we could all live affluently and wastefully, however I live in the real world where such behaviour is almost without exception unsustainable. As a father and as someone who cares about the future prosperity of humans on this planet I refuse to live in a way that will have a detrimental effect on future generations. You seem to differ.

 

[Giardiasis]

This point alone well and truly confirms tigersnake's first point. Wilful ignorance is never pretty.

As for your stated views on overconsumption, I personally have no problem with the idea per se. I actually wish we could all live affluently and wastefully, however I live in the real world where such behaviour is almost without exception unsustainable. As a father and as someone who cares about the future prosperity of humans on this planet I refuse to live in a way that will have a detrimental effect on future generations. You seem to differ.

His first point was the least pertinent to the issue at hand, and again the ignorance is yours. Yet again this has taken us nowhere. If you wish to debate the merits (or lack of) of the absurdity I was pointing out, feel free to do so. Otherwise why bother?

Define unsustainable, it seems that old chestnut is used to justify the most absurd calls for government control. I'm not surprised you think you are on the moral high ground, a lot of people like to think they are saving someone or serving some important purpose. On the contrary I think it is you that wish to live in a way that will have a detrimental effect on future generations, not the least the poor and starving peoples of Africa, Asia and Latin America. Consumption is their ticket out of poverty. You would deny them this, although not consciously.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

His first point was the least pertinent to the issue at hand, and again the ignorance is yours. Yet again this has taken us nowhere. If you wish to debate the merits (or lack of) of the absurdity I was pointing out, feel free to do so. Otherwise why bother?

Anyone who cites the exhalation of CO2 or the opening of a can of soft drink (as I heard the other day) as contributing to the problem needs to do a little reading (a little). Start with the carbon cycle.

Define unsustainable, it seems that old chestnut is used to justify the most absurd calls for government control. I'm not surprised you think you are on the moral high ground, a lot of people like to think they are saving someone or serving some important purpose. On the contrary I think it is you that wish to live in a way that will have a detrimental effect on future generations, not the least the poor and starving peoples of Africa, Asia and Latin America. Consumption is their ticket out of poverty. You would deny them this, although not consciously.

Unsustainability is performing anything that has a finite timespan - ie using fossil fuels as a source of energy - there is only so much in the ground and they are deposited far more slowly than we use them. Mining as a sustainable source of revenue for Australia - we are reaping the benefits now, but we really need to invest those profits in our future, because once they're gone, they're gone. Pumping huge quantities of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere - we have already observed the effects of this and yet you and some other conservative pundits believe that we should tread blindly into the unknown, ignoring what history tells us about climate change and extinction events.

Just because these may be available now or have no immediate drastic effects, makes them no more sustainable. Steps need to be taken now to come up with more sustainable solutions and better 'consume' the finite resources that we have.

I acknowledge that the West has benefitted greatly from the industrial revolution and the unsustainable practices of our forefathers and that there is inherent hypocrisy in attempting to deny that 'ticket out of poverty' to the developing world. However, we are all in this together and decisions need to be made to improve the lot of everyone. It could be argued that this is why Western nations should take the lead in undertaking more sustainable practices and developing technologies that will make this more possible. Then everyone benefits.

Not consciously? You might be surprised.

 

[Giardiasis]

Anyone who cites the exhalation of CO2 or the opening of a can of soft drink (as I heard the other day) as contributing to the problem needs to do a little reading (a little). Start with the carbon cycle.

A much more productive response. So I assume you don't expect Coca-Cola to be charged for the CO2 released from their products?

Unsustainability is performing anything that has a finite timespan - ie using fossil fuels as a source of energy - there is only so much in the ground and they are deposited far more slowly than we use them. Mining as a sustainable source of revenue for Australia - we are reaping the benefits now, but we really need to invest those profits in our future, because once they're gone, they're gone. Pumping huge quantities of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere - we have already observed the effects of this and yet you and some other conservative pundits believe that we should tread blindly into the unknown, ignoring what history tells us about climate change and extinction events.

Just because these may be available now or have no immediate drastic effects, makes them no more sustainable. Steps need to be taken now to come up with more sustainable solutions and better 'consume' the finite resources that we have.

I acknowledge that the West has benefitted greatly from the industrial revolution and the unsustainable practices of our forefathers and that there is inherent hypocrisy in attempting to deny that 'ticket out of poverty' to the developing world. However, we are all in this together and decisions need to be made to improve the lot of everyone. It could be argued that this is why Western nations should take the lead in undertaking more sustainable practices and developing technologies that will make this more possible. Then everyone benefits.

Not consciously? You might be surprised.

Everything has a finite timespan. If can you exploit a finite resource cheaply that means that there is enough supply to meet demand. As long as that remains the case, what is the benefit of going to a more expensive option that can be exploited longer? Wouldn't the most reasonable action be to exploit the cheaper resource until it becomes more expensive than other sources? I agree we shouldn't be using the proceeds of our mineral resources to fund government waste.

What effects have we seen from AGW? I'm very interested to know this.

Yes the industrial revolution is why we have the standard of living we all take for granted. Until sustainable practices as you call them actually create wealth, rather than destroy it, everyone will be worse off. I'd argue from that standpoint that they are not sustainable if they are not affordable. Wealth creating industry can not survive on your idea of sustainability. Thinking that by making coal/oil/gas artificially expensive will somehow improve renewable energy is a fantasy.

If you consciously would deny the third world access to cheap energy, then you might want to re-assess our standings on the moral high ground.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

A much more productive response. So I assume you don't expect Coca-Cola to be charged for the CO2 released from their products?

Nice dodge. :-\

Coca-cola should be charged for the energy requirements of their production if they come from CO2 emitting sources, but not the CO2 in their soft drinks. Do you understand why?

Everything has a finite timespan.

Yes. But that is not a helpful viewpoint. Yes, the sun will eventually burn itself out, but we had better have bigger solutions to that issue if in the unlikely event we are around when it occurs.

Other finite resources have much shorter expected time spans given current consumption rates. Should we flagrantly use them up, essentially screwing the potential prosperity of future generations?

If can you exploit a finite resource cheaply that means that there is enough supply to meet demand. As long as that remains the case, what is the benefit of going to a more expensive option that can be exploited longer? Wouldn't the most reasonable action be to exploit the cheaper resource until it becomes more expensive than other sources?

Not if it is damaging to future generations. For many of these finite resources when they are gone, they are gone. Wouldn't be better to come up with more sustainable solutions that will slow down or completely remove the need for such resources?

I agree we shouldn't be using the proceeds of our mineral resources to fund government waste.

Nice pot shot. Would you like to define the government waste that you refer to?

What effects have we seen from AGW? I'm very interested to know this.

Re-read this thread. The warming trend and human's role have clearly been measured. That is an effect. The consequences of this are harder to estimate, but the most conservative models aren't very optimistic.

As I asked in a previous post on this thread, arguing from incredulity is pointless. If you disagree with scientific consensus provide the grounds for that disagreement. The inconvenience of the situation should have no bearing on the reality - that was tigersnake's point.

Yes the industrial revolution is why we have the standard of living we all take for granted. Until sustainable practices as you call them actually create wealth, rather than destroy it, everyone will be worse off. I'd argue from that standpoint that they are not sustainable if they are not affordable. Wealth creating industry can not survive on your idea of sustainability. Thinking that by making coal/oil/gas artificially expensive will somehow improve renewable energy is a fantasy.

Short term pain for long term gain - yes, we could continue to live unsustainably, but what happens when those resources that support our lifestyle run out?

If you consciously would deny the third world access to cheap energy, then you might want to re-assess our standings on the moral high ground.

Even if it means hanging us and them in the long term? Wouldn't a productive dialogue be better? Wouldn't concessions to developing nations and tightening of the belt in the developed world be more productive?

 

[Giardiasis]

Not a fan of the excessive quoting, it becomes very tiresome.

1. Yes, because it would be far too difficult to measure. Do you actually know how much CO2 is emitted from cans of drink?

2. Yes as viewpoint it is unhelpful. It is more pointing out the fact that saying unsustainable is not very helpful either. We need to know what period of time of availability is sustainable, and what is not sustainable. How can you call it "screwing the potential prosperity of future generations" when your intention would be that no-one exloits that resource in any generation.

3. No they are not gone, once they become too expensive people will stop using it long before they are used up. Unfortunately coming up with solutions that have a longer source of supply isn't as easy as you make it sound. It is only worth it if it is profitable. Otherwise it is not in anyone's interest to persue it. Remember making something artificially profitable does not generate real wealth.

4. It seems that any proceeds that go to inhibiting profitable industry will go to the government. The government will use this money to re-distribute wealth in an attempt to lower voter backlash or to send the money to various green schemes designed to boost green industry that have been a monumental failure, hence waste.

5. No they have not been clearly measured. I've already alluded to the issue of feedbacks as a point of contention. Inconvience is an argument to distract from the real issues.

6. The incentives to develop other technologies increase naturally through Entrepreneurship and competition. The world population would be a lot smaller if everyone enjoyed the West's standard of living.

7. I don't see why it would hurt us in the long term. Productive dialogue sounds warm and fuzzy, but provides what exactly? Concessions to countries that do not value Western values of equality of opportunity, freedom of expression, and economic liberalism would have no value, in fact it would probably be deleterious.