Global Warming

[Azza]

Not sure Azza.....maybe a sun flare, if you are thinking of a short term extinction...not necessarily from a 'direct hit' though but a possibility.
Longer term, the sun is an obvious problem.

Nah, just thinking of the Mayans. I reckon the comet must be the go.

 

[AngryAnt]

Longer term, the sun is an obvious problem.

Yeah, lets just get rid of it. We don't need an obviously pesky sun creating problems.

During my hiatus (melt down? what are you talking about??? ???), in which I got quite bored here and decided to travel...my views did not change, therefore it was 5 years (and still going).

Not what I was told but carry on.

 

[tigersnake]

my views did not change,

they did Liverpool. And I wasn't being sarcastic by the way, I'm impressed. You used to scoff at any suggestion humans were having any effect. You are'nt any more.

I don't get why the shame over changing or evolving philosophies on matters. Its a positive thing and part of what defines us as humans.

 

[AngryAnt]

Quality rant Bullus.

x2

 

[Liverpool]

Not what I was told but carry on.

Well, you were misinformed as per normal it seems ;D

they did Liverpool. And I wasn't being sarcastic by the way, I'm impressed. You used to scoff at any suggestion humans were having any effect. You are'nt any more.
I don't get why the shame over changing or evolving philosophies on matters. Its a positive thing and part of what defines us as humans.

I've never said humans have had no effect....I may have said they were not the main cause...and I stand by it.

 

[tigersnake]

Well, you were misinformed as per normal it seems ;D

I've never said humans have had no effect....I may have said they were not the main cause...and I stand by it.

I can only go by whats in front of me Liverpool. Your position and tone have both changed.

 

[tigersnake]

Not a fan of Rinehart or any of the other billionaires who prance around like they were the ones who planted the minerals in the earth. It's all about self interest and has little to do with the general health of the country. It irks me even more that characters like Rinehart think they can hijack democracy and simply buyout the media, her disgraceful attempt at abandoning the charter of editorial independence at Fairfax reeks of megalomania and narcissism.

As for her views on climate change, well let's just say it has nothing to do with science and everything to do with her bottom line. Most of the denialists shun the science, or at least cherry pick their information to serve their own agenda. I cannot think of an issue that has been researched as thoroughly as climate change, yet still we have to deal with the same idiotic conclusions delivered by the likes of Rinehart, Bolt, Pilmer, Jones, McCrann and all the other commentators being bankrolled by the fossil fuel industry.

I'm still amazed that people today pretend we're not making any impact on the general climate. Deforestation is robbing the earth of it's natural air-conditioning system, atmospheric CO2 levels are at dangerously high levels based on the ice samples taken from the Artic and Antartic, the seas surface temperatures are heating up and the glaciers are rapidly retreating.

To merely suggest that the earth's temeperatures naturally fluctuate is a moot point, man's impact is like an overlay on existing systems, and one which could rapidly accelerate changes which would otherwise occur over a much more prolonged period.

Ultimately, I doubt there's much we can do aside from watch and wait for the carnage. When the globe's population hits 10 billion, there will be little we can do to stem the bleeding from environmental degradation and the collapse of ecosytems. Humans are much like rabbits, driven to consume and breed until entire populations begin to collapse.

Even the most starry-eyed idealist would concede that we have given little consideration to an economic paradigm which is clearly unsustainable. Unfortunately, the only way to change the system is to allow the system to implode upon itself. Perhaps not the solution by which the high and mighty economists would dare voice, but a brutal reality nevertheless.

Very nice passionate tiger rant bullus. Tremendous, its got everything, very good concise grasp of all the issues from all the angles. Only thing I differ from you is that I'm a bit more optimistic about the future, but I fully appreciate the evidence in front of us backs your line, and I might just be being a little deluded on that.

One hope I do cling to, is that when (if) we do reach the tipping point and finally act in global terms, China's state run economy will be able to act very quickly. They will then be ahead of the game and then competitive forces will make the rest of the world fall into line. Its a long shot though.

 

[Liverpool]

I can only go by whats in front of me Liverpool. Your position and tone have both changed.

Well, you need some glasses then mate

 

[AngryAnt]

Well, you were misinformed as per normal it seems ;D

Perhaps so. Travelling for three years sounds like a lot of fun. I hope you finally got to Anfield ;-)

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Well, you need some glasses then mate

Sounds like a group trip to OPSM may be in order.

 

[Disco08]

Well, you were misinformed as per normal it seems ;D

I've never said humans have had no effect....I may have said they were not the main cause...and I stand by it.

Out of interest Livers, how much knowledge do you have on the subject? Have you read a lot of the literature that supports AGW for instance, or have you mainly read opinion and study that supports your viewpoint?

I actually am not completely sold either way and certainly wouldn't rule out any possibility. Although I've tried to read as much as i can aboout it, I just simply don't have the knowledge.

 

[Liverpool]

Out of interest Livers, how much knowledge do you have on the subject? Have you read a lot of the literature that supports AGW for instance, or have you mainly read opinion and study that supports your viewpoint?

I actually am not completely sold either way and certainly wouldn't rule out any possibility. Although I've tried to read as much as i can aboout it, I just simply don't have the knowledge.

Probably the same as most people on this thread, to be fair.

I've read and watched programs on both sides of the debate and there are some excellent points out there from all sides of the argument.

However, there are so many articles/theories which can be debunked...then that gets debunked from someone else...and then another theory comes into the equation...that sooner or later, there is so much information that all you can do is form your own opinions from what you have read/watched.

Like I said in an earlier post...."science" is not one entity and its why I cringe at some posters who claim "well, science supports this so thats it".
Its not the case.
Even scientists are bickering amongst themselves regarding the theories and causes, so there is no definitive answer and nobody can say "science supports this...or that".
These posters really mean the scientists they have read and agree with have a theory which they believe in....not "science" as such.

Also, I have stated many times already that scientists on BOTH sides of the equation (and in between) are fighting for grant money or have vested interests....however, there is mot much acknowledgement from the pro-'man did it' lobby regarding "their" scientists having vested interests, its always the "other scientists" who are the crackpots funded by oil companies.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

I'm really not sure where to go with this, it is just a collection of motherhood statements made without any evidence to support assertions like the cost of energy production being reduced.

No offence, but it isn't as convincing an argument as you seem to believe it to be.

No offence but you haven't offered any evidence of the increased costs either. Wholesale energy costs are currently at their lowest level in a decade partially contributed to by local generation from roof-top solar and wind farms in SA. If renewables drive the price up, why is it going down?

 

[tigersnake]

Probably the same as most people on this thread, to be fair.

I've read and watched programs on both sides of the debate and there are some excellent points out there from all sides of the argument.

However, there are so many articles/theories which can be debunked...then that gets debunked from someone else...and then another theory comes into the equation...that sooner or later, there is so much information that all you can do is form your own opinions from what you have read/watched.

Like I said in an earlier post...."science" is not one entity and its why I cringe at some posters who claim "well, science supports this so thats it".
Its not the case.
Even scientists are bickering amongst themselves regarding the theories and causes, so there is no definitive answer and nobody can say "science supports this...or that".
These posters really mean the scientists they have read and agree with have a theory which they believe in....not "science" as such.

Also, I have stated many times already that scientists on BOTH sides of the equation (and in between) are fighting for grant money or have vested interests....however, there is mot much acknowledgement from the pro-'man did it' lobby regarding "their" scientists having vested interests, its always the "other scientists" who are the crackpots funded by oil companies.

sorry Liverpool. That all might sound good if the topic comes up in the pub, a family dinner maybe, or an anonymous internet tigers supporters forum. But it doesn't wash. The data and analysis behind theory of AGW has been steadily building and strengthening since the 1950s. It is 'science' as such. Its as 'scientific' as we can get.

There is no counter argument in the peer reviewed literature. Thats it.

To go back to my Collingwood v Waubra analogy, the 'bickering' is like a Waubra spud farmer attempting to tag Pendlebury and giving him a few elbows before the bounce, its annoying, but its not gunna have any impact on the outcome.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Probably the same as most people on this thread, to be fair.

I've read and watched programs on both sides of the debate and there are some excellent points out there from all sides of the argument.

However, there are so many articles/theories which can be debunked...then that gets debunked from someone else...and then another theory comes into the equation...that sooner or later, there is so much information that all you can do is form your own opinions from what you have read/watched.

Like I said in an earlier post...."science" is not one entity and its why I cringe at some posters who claim "well, science supports this so thats it".
Its not the case.
Even scientists are bickering amongst themselves regarding the theories and causes, so there is no definitive answer and nobody can say "science supports this...or that".
These posters really mean the scientists they have read and agree with have a theory which they believe in....not "science" as such.

More than any other area of scientific inquiry the research on climate change is such a political hot potato and a morass of misinformation and engineered doubt that it is not surprising to see this view. It happened with the tobacco lobbies and the health effects of smoking and it happened with the science around nuclear winter and MAD during the 1980s. When powerful vested interests throw money at 'scientists' with the sole aim of generating doubt they aren't out to disprove, just generate this type of discussion among the general public, who, frankly, as a whole generally are ignorant of the scientific method. It has been amazingly effective.

You throw the assertions above around as if they are hard facts. They are not. For one, scientists always 'bicker' in their own way. It is the competitive nature of the process that hones the best theories. In fact, most areas DO have a prevailing school of thought and research on climate is no different. It isn't a contest to debunk one another. It is about interpretation of data, the addition of new data and the refining of the models. All of the mainstream models in climate science show an overwhelming impact from human activity overlaying the known natural cycles that you seem fond of citing as if the scientists who do this full time aren't aware of them and don't incorporate them into their models. If a scientist wants their view to be taken seriously they can't just point out the flaws in current models, they must provide a model that better fits the data.

You have used the word "arrogant" to describe the idea that we could understand such a complex system. IMO it is the height of arrogance to suggest that you know better than professionals who have spent their lives on this research. Finally, you are aware that science isn't conducted in documentaries and news reports? The actual science is found in the peer-reviewed literature and is discussed at scientific conferences. Not all science journalists are created equal .

Also, I have stated many times already that scientists on BOTH sides of the equation (and in between) are fighting for grant money or have vested interests....however, there is mot much acknowledgement from the pro-'man did it' lobby regarding "their" scientists having vested interests, its always the "other scientists" who are the crackpots funded by oil companies.

The difference in the scale is ridiculous. The idea that the vested interests of the scientists means that they fabricate (?) data or interpret in a certain way doesn't carry any weight for someone who knows the process. The flaws would be pointed out very quickly due to the competitive nature of the process. That is, unless you believe there is global conspiracy of climate scientists :hihi.

 

[tigersnake]

Also, I have stated many times already that scientists on BOTH sides of the equation (and in between) are fighting for grant money or have vested interests....however, there is mot much acknowledgement from the pro-'man did it' lobby regarding "their" scientists having vested interests, its always the "other scientists" who are the crackpots funded by oil companies.

I've responded to this so many times over the years Liverpool. I know its pointless but here goes again. Reputable science funding bodies are independent, openly and proudly, they fund good science, and only good science. Rich prizes are given for peer reviewed publications and associated discoveries, The Nobel Prizes are probably the most famous example...Corporations on the other hand fund scientists that will produce sympathetic findings. In the vast majority of cases these corporate lapdog scientists are not taken seriously in their profession and are second or third rate and can't get $$ from the reputable sources. But the Corp that has commissioned the findings has enough resources that they can promote the findings as 'science', and muddy the waters. Thats all they can ever hope to do, muddy the waters, they do it relentlessly and they do that well, via expensive PR and Ad firms.

Why privilege second rate science liverpool? If your mum was dying of Cancer would you want the Manangatang GP or the Howard Florey Institute on the case? Why beleive Dr J from Ballarat Uni over a phalanx of gun professors from Harvard and Oxford? Why see Jade Hurley at the Ferntree Gully Hotel if you can see Prince at the Sydney Opera House?

Its got me stuffed.

 

[mld]

No offence but you haven't offered any evidence of the increased costs either.

Given that the carbon tax is based on the premise that the cost of carbon-based energy needs to be increased make the more expensive, cleaner forms of energy more competitive, I don’t think my holding that assumption is a questionable position.

Are you suggesting that the carbon tax is unnecessary?

 

[Liverpool]

sorry Liverpool. That all might sound good if the topic comes up in the pub, a family dinner maybe, or an anonymous internet tigers supporters forum. But it doesn't wash. The data and analysis behind theory of AGW has been steadily building and strengthening since the 1950s. It is 'science' as such. Its as 'scientific' as we can get.
There is no counter argument in the peer reviewed literature. Thats it.

Going by this logic, out of the 300-odd papers Einstein produced, how many were peer-reviewed?
ONE.
Even his famous theory of relativity in 1905 was not peer-reviewed.

http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/three-myths-about-scientific-peer-review/

Lucky Einstein was not around in the time of Tigersnake or he'd be classed as a crackpot with vested interests and his theories not worth the paper they're written on because they're not peer-reviewed.

Reputable science funding bodies are independent, openly and proudly, they fund good science, and only good science. Rich prizes are given for peer reviewed publications and associated discoveries, The Nobel Prizes are probably the most famous example...Corporations on the other hand fund scientists that will produce sympathetic findings. In the vast majority of cases these corporate lapdog scientists are not taken seriously in their profession and are second or third rate and can't get $$ from the reputable sources. But the Corp that has commissioned the findings has enough resources that they can promote the findings as 'science', and muddy the waters. Thats all they can ever hope to do, muddy the waters, they do it relentlessly and they do that well, via expensive PR and Ad firms.

Einstein won a Nobel Prize without being peer-reviewed, so peer-review obviously isn't a condition of excellence when it comes to science is it?

As for vested interests...you may be right that some scientists who do not agree with the AGW theory are being paid by corportations or bodies....but so is it the other way Tigersnake.
You seem to ignore this fact or are naive to this fact.

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/06/14/money-corrupts-peer-review-process/

So what about the much-trumpeted, claimed “gold standard” of strict use of peer review papers by the IPCC? Well, this has been completely exposed by Canadian investigative journalist Donna Laframboise, who showed that an amazing 30% of the articles cited in the definitive Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC were from non-peer-reviewed sources, including such writings as student theses and environmental lobbyist reports.

they did Liverpool. And I wasn't being sarcastic by the way, I'm impressed. You used to scoff at any suggestion humans were having any effect. You are'nt any more.
I don't get why the shame over changing or evolving philosophies on matters. Its a positive thing and part of what defines us as humans.

From 5 years ago:

All we can do is read our info and make our opinions, and this is my opinion, that while I agree that the Earth is heating up (as well as the other planets in our solar system), I believe, from what I have read and heard, that while there may be a small contribution by the human race in climate change or global warming on this planet, the majority of any change, is purely a natural one, as we have seen in the past on this planet.....as well as other planets that do not have any human race inhabiting them.
We are overstating our role in this change, and understating Mother Nature.
That's my opinion and I stand by it.

No different today mate.

 

[tigersnake]

muddying the waters, second and third rate science. All those examples there have been picked apart previously. I specifically remember the 'gold standard' line. Sorry to be a smart arse but fair dinkum, its crackpot sh!t.

The peer review process is brutal, absolutely brutal. The 'opinion' and 'blog' processes on the other hand....

 

[Azza]

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/06/14/money-corrupts-peer-review-process/

[

Speaking of vested interests

Bob Carter -

Emeritus fellow and science policy advisor at the free market think-tank the Institute of Public Affairs (funded byT its membership which include both private individuals and businesses. Among these businesses are ExxonMobil, Telstra, WMC Resources, BHP Billiton, Phillip Morris,[5] Murray Irrigation Limited, and Visy Industries. IPA donors have also included Clough Engineering, Caltex, Shell and Esso. Other donors were electricity and mining companies, as well as British American Tobacco (BAT).[7] : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Public_Affairs


Personally funded by the Heartlands Institute - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute