The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Do-nothing stance on climate not an option > Comments

Do-nothing stance on climate not an option : Comments

By Martin Callinan, published 5/12/2005

Martin Callinan argues Australia’s climate policy has become a degraded object for most Australians.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Martin, check the facts before you rant. You begin by saying that "The Howard Government’s position on climate change is to acknowledge climate science but not restrict Australia’s greenhouse emissions. ... So far we’ve rejected Kyoto, rejected emission trading and our emissions continue to rise unabated."

This is nonsense, at variance with the facts. The proposed Kyoto target for Australia, which recognised that much of our emissions arise from export industries which serve other countries' needs, was 108% of our 1990 emissions in the period 2008-12.

DEH released a press statement on 30/11/05 which states that "A new report released today shows Australia remains on track to meet its Kyoto target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 108 per cent of their 1990 level by 2010.

The Minister for the Environment and Heritage, Senator Ian Campbell, today released Tracking to the Kyoto Target 2005, which measures Australia’s performance against its internationally agreed emissions target.

Senator Campbell said the report showed that actions taken by governments, industry and the community meant Australia would save 85 million tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions a year by 2010. This is the equivalent of taking every one of Australia’s 14 million cars, trucks and buses off the road – and stopping all rail, air and shipping activity.

Without such action, it is estimated that emissions would reach 123 per cent of 1990 levels by 2010.

“This result is a tremendous effort by governments, industry and the Australian community – all of which have taken up the climate change challenge,” Senator Campbell said.

“We are one of only a handful of industrialised countries that is on track to its target through domestic action alone.""

We haven't joined Kyoto, but we have met the targets; and the recent initiative with major current and prospective polluters the US, China and India is surely goiung to be far more effective than anything coming out of the EU.
Posted by Faustino, Monday, 5 December 2005 11:36:02 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The warming we are experiencing now can easily be explained as part of a natural cycle of climate variation. The hysteria surrounding cllimate change and C02 emissions is another thing altogether. Take a look at yourselves. How can you listen to these people and believe that climate change is the greatest threat to the planet? cant you see that your being brainwashed by a mantra designed to keep the poor poor and the rich in a satanic paridise?

There may well be adverse effects of C02 on the environment but to say there is no discenting science and that it is the greatest problem we have to face (sorry third world no power grids for you) is insane. Do you think a country that wins brownie points by letting international financiers move its industry to the third world where the workers live and are treated like slaves is more admirable because it now has a lower c02 emission?
Posted by Jellyback, Monday, 5 December 2005 2:45:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This is Australia's new contribution to the world. Taking on the role of "second dissenter" along with the US.

There're just two of us.... It makes Japanese whale hunters seem like law-abiding global citizens.
Posted by WhiteWombat, Monday, 5 December 2005 11:14:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Faustino,

Thanks for posting the Minister`s press release.

Exactly what did I write that conflicts with the facts?

Our emissions continue to rise. Check the facts.

Exactly what is the Government is doing to decrease (RESTRICT) our emissions?

Tell me when, give me the year, under this Government`s policy, that emissions will start to decline? Check the facts.

It is strange that you are so satisfied with the Government`s assertion that emissions aren`t growing as fast as they otherwise may have been thanks to non restrictive voluntary measures. Is this the sum of your attitude? Is this a solution?

I am in Montreal now, along with 10,000 other people, trying to find ways to REDUCE the world`s emissions.

The Minister turns up tomorrow, I hope he`ll have more to say than "in Australia things aren`t as bad they they could be". It won`t go down too well.

Have a look at:

http://www.fossil-of-the-day.org/go/
Posted by martin callinan, Tuesday, 6 December 2005 4:18:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Faustimo, This is the equivalent of taking every one of Australia’s 14 million cars, trucks and buses off the road – and stopping all rail, air and shipping activity. What action has been taken to achieve this result that Campbell talks off. It would be very interesting to see the figures that will achieve this and the industries that will have to change for those results.

To believe that climate change is a natural cyclic event, flies in the face of reality. Presently our atmosphere has 27% more C02 that at any time in the last 250000 years. You either live in an city and never go anywhere that has a real climate, or you are just a slave to illusion.

Faustimo, I look forward to your comments over the next 3 years regarding this, thats if where you live is still in one piece.

Jellyback, continuing on the present path will keep the poor poor and the rich richer. To stop and reverse the current climate trends, would require a rethink of how we conduct our society, as it will be small enterprises that will be capable of change, rather than monopolies and large organisations and cities.
Posted by The alchemist, Tuesday, 6 December 2005 9:18:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Alchemist,

in the spirit of learning together and fostering consructive debate, which societies, time periods or leaders from the past (say 1000 years) do you see as instructive as to the direction that 1) Australia should take and/or 2) the world as a whole should take.

When I say say direction we should take I mean a direction that maximises the health, education, happiness, creative potential of the maximum number of that society's members. I would also include, but am sure you would disagree, the fostering of conditions amenable to population growth but you can leave that out if you consider it debatable.

Do you have a different idea of what a "good society" is?
Posted by Jellyback, Tuesday, 6 December 2005 2:57:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Concerning our present ever worsening global climate problem, proven by melting glaciers, etc, our present global rulership, sounds very much the head of a household, usually a male who declares to his wife, look, honey, we'll do that when we can afford it, so let's make enough money first.

And so it goes on. The worry is do our present rulers really have the answers concerning climate change. If it come to the test, it is from the universities where most of the warnings originate.

The further worry is that most of our rulers, especially in the White House, are proven go-getters, ready to take a political plunge because they have the power-backing to alleviate the risk. Here we talk about persons like Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, who incidently might prefer less scientific measures to replace the use of oil and gas in the world.

So if we want to preserve a safer world for our great-grandkids, it could be a good idea to look to our deep intellectual areas, our universities, and not to monied groups similar to those who hold global power.
Posted by bushbred, Tuesday, 6 December 2005 4:50:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PEOPLE WITH PASSION [4get the Intellects]!

The force of the people is enough if you can get them motivated!

Anyone with a brain can look around today and see that times are a changing, you dont need to be a scholar...to work out that. If swift action is not in place we will all be dooomed at the hands of mankind, If GOD doesnt step in First!.

Just look at the rise in Asthma cases and tell me that the levels of Co2 doesnt matter not even mentioning our melting polar caps. Hello wake up and try to smell the roses.Let's look for REAL SOLUTIONS and stop quibbling as to who is at blame or why?

We need to ask ourselves what we personally achieved today. Do we use the WALK,RIDE or CARPOOL option? Did we switch off the electrical items we were not using. Are we prepared to pay alittle extra for SOLAR power or better still generate our own power via wind, sun, tidal surge or water wheel the options are there are we assisting the inventor? Or do we ignore him because were too high minded to listen to someone that isnt in the INTELLECT CIRCLE. Let all Intellects & dummies use the ME FIRST POLICY reasoning of today & set an example to others by encouraging our neighbours in society to do something positive for the environment.

Bea Green
Posted by Bea Green, Thursday, 8 December 2005 9:22:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Jellyback, from my own limited knowledge of histories leaders, I doubt that there has been anyone that would have taken the world or individual countries towards a sustainable future, but I am happy to be corrected.

Human population growth is a religious demand to increase their cannon fodder and influence, and a PC delusion that human life is sacrosanct. Human population growth has devastating outcomes. It depletes the natural resources of the planet rapidly. It destroys the animal life, for human greed and selfcentred satisfaction. It ruins the climate as humans expand their environmentally debauched lifestyles, destroying natural habitat and the planets ecology systems.

As long as we have societies that are orientated towards economic domination, growth at any cost, then nothing can be done to stop the decline and finality of our society. Throughout history, human societies have thought that their standard of living and technologies were the ultimate in living. Yet the inappropriate use of their technologies greatly contributed to their collapse.

The proper approach would be to utilise technology to enhance the environment as well as give us comfort and technological advancement. We have the knowledge we need, but not the inspiration because of greed. So this society will collapse over a very short period of time as has others, what will survive is the knowledge of not how to operate a sustainable society.

A growing consumption society is a quick way to the end. all it was only 50 years ago that this plant was still in a reasonably pristine condition except for heavily lived areas. Now it is the entire planet that is suffering. Common sense will show you that. Buy then again, it is only the blind and greedy and those who fear lose of power influence or face that refuse to see what reality has in store for us.

I can understand that those that have never really seen pristine environments, would see their own despotic cesspool environments as normal. The only time the people will get behind change, is when society has collapsed around them.
Posted by The alchemist, Thursday, 8 December 2005 10:51:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is evident from simple observation that the richer societies become, and the more their populations are educated, the more their population growth diminishes.
Have a look at most of the nations of the West. There is virtually no population growth, apart from immigration, in Western Europe.
Similarly in the US and Japan.
Also, far from the environment worsening in the last fifty years, there has been an improvement in most Western countries. Just compare London in the 1950's with its “smog”, to London today. This is only one example.
Of course the environment can be improved still further, but the trend is positive, especially in the West.
I recommend that the following article be read:
http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=718860

The article explains why people think the environment is getting worse, when in fact it is improving.
Of course, we have to be vigilant to ensure that this progress continues. It won’t be continued by societies becoming poorer, which is what most “greenies” advocate.
Posted by Froggie, Friday, 9 December 2005 3:25:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Froggie, that article was written 4 years ago and on an economists site, you could expect nothing less from those that live in fantasy land.

Things have changed drastically since then, but I understand the head in the sand attitude. You only have to look at the glaciers of the world to see the dramatic change and how much damage it will cause.

You must live in a box in a city to have the attitude you have and rarely if ever venture out of your polluted environemt, to not see the reality of what is happening
Posted by The alchemist, Saturday, 10 December 2005 1:15:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Climate change if happening is a natural occurance that has been hapening since beginning of time.CO2 is rising but very slowly and not as high as in the past.No proof that climate change is being caused by rising CO2 levels.No computer climate has ever been validated .So called models are scenarios and should be treated as such.
macp
Posted by ANGLE, Saturday, 10 December 2005 4:48:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Angel,

Name one (1) world leader or climatologist that agrees with you.

In Montreal last week EVERY nation on earth declared that climate change is happening, that it is a problem and that it is caused by rising C02 emissions as a result of modern human activity. They universally hold this view because the world’s climatologists have confidence in their observations, models and projections enough to be sure that there is a real problem.

Can you back up your statement? What is it based on? Who told you this?
Posted by martin callinan, Sunday, 11 December 2005 1:23:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Martin Callinan:
I object to the bullying tone you used to respond to Angle’s posting.
Some Climatologists and other scientists who disagree with your ideas:

- Atmospheric physicist S. Fred Singer, former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service.
- Meteorologist Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who said in 2001: “large computer climate models are unable to even simulate major features of past climate such as the 100 thousand year cycles of ice ages that have dominated climate for the past 700 thousand years, and the very warm climates of the Miocene, Eocene, and Cretaceous. Neither do they do well at accounting for shorter period and less dramatic phenomena like El Niños, quasi-biennial oscillations, or intra-seasonal oscillations -- all of which are well documented in the data.
Major past climate changes were either uncorrelated with changes in CO2 or were characterized by temperature changes which preceded changes in CO2 by 100's to thousands of years”
- Prof Dennis Bray, of the GKSS National Research Centre in Geesthacht, Germany
- Dr Chris Landsea, an expert on hurricanes with the United States National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, who resigned from the IPCC, claiming that it was "motivated by pre-conceived agendas" and was "scientifically unsound".
- Climatologist Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville who said: "Most scientists spend their lives working to shore up the reigning world view - the dominant paradigm - and those who disagree are always much fewer in number. The drive to conformity is accentuated by peer review, which ensures that only papers in support of the paradigm appear in the literature, and by public funding that gives money to research into the prevailing "paradigm of doom". Rebels who challenge prevailing orthodoxies are often proved right”.

I could go on…What I object to is the constant attempt by “global warming is caused by anthropogenic forcing” advocates, to say that there is a consensus among climatologists, implying that there is no dissent. This is evidently false. There is a lot of dissent.
I recommend that readers refer to this web site:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2004/12/10/open-letter-to-senator-mccain/
Posted by Froggie, Sunday, 11 December 2005 4:01:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Froggie,

I didn’t mean to sound bullying; I don’t think I did. I am just asking, name one world leader or climatologist whom agrees with you.

You’ve named a few scientists, none of whom say that there is no proof that climate change is being caused by rising CO2 levels. Give me the reference to a paper they have published in a peer reviewed climate journal in recent years that provides evidence of this claim.

I had a good chat with Richard Lindzen at Yale in November. His view is that future predictions are not as accurate as other think. Fair enough, that’s his view, I appreciate it. The vast majority of climatogologists have confidence in these models however. He does not for a moment say, as ANGLE says, that there is no proof that climate change is being caused by rising CO2 levels. Neither does the rest on your list. Again, give us the reference.

What I object to is the constant attempt by people such as yourself who say that obscure descent from any quarter somehow violates and nullifies the consensus that exists among climatologists. It does not. There is descent; there will always be people who offer the most unorthodox things. This is a good thing. There is also the potential for geniuses and revolution here, that’s the way science occasionally works but there is yet to be a case where verifiable physical evidence has been overthrown and proven incorrect. Though the Flatearthers still live in hope, I understand.

Climate change will require some effort to deal with, do you think all the world's leaders are stupid and are being tricked? Or can you name one world leader who says human forced climate change isn't happening?
Posted by martin callinan, Sunday, 11 December 2005 4:42:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Martin, thank you for your polite response. Just a small criticism: the word “descent” means downward motion, not to disagree.
I must concede that I have not been able to find articles of the nature that you request me to refer to. I could be mischievous and say that the reason for this is that the journals you speak of don’t permit “DISSENTING” articles to be published, as the following article indicates:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/01/wglob01.xml
My point was not to disagree about increased CO2 levels, but merely to say that there are scientists who do not fully agree with the current “consensus” on global warming. I thought I’d made that pretty clear.
As for the world’s leaders being stupid, well, they may or may not be stupid, although at least some of them have done some pretty stupid things in the past. They may merely be reacting, as laymen, to the “green mantra” about climate change. The problem as I see it, is that the Green establishment has cried wolf about too many issues in the past, and now the public doesn’t know what to believe. Thirty years ago it was a scare about “global cooling”. Now it’s about “global warming”.
No wonder the public reacts sceptically, especially if they are not allowed to see dissenting opinion.
It often strikes me how many of the people advocating this green mantra are also “socialists”. I can’t help but think that there must be some connection there.
BTW, how did you get to Montreal? You should not have used an aircraft, to be consistent with your beliefs.
Posted by Froggie, Monday, 12 December 2005 1:37:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yep, sorry descent / dissent, spelling error there.

It is a question of degrees, pun intended.

I am saying that there is consensus in the scientific literature on whether anthropogenic climate change is happening and whether it is a real problem. Yes and yes.

There is not consensus on exactly what will happen where in 50 years time. All the world’s academic academies say there will be significant and problematic climate change, some scientists say it will be catastrophic, and some scientists say we can’t really say with much confidence what the extent will be, eg. Lindzen.

And of course there are many commentators who are unable to publish anything scientific on the subject who speak in the public arena to argue for their personal understandings. I am one of these.

Climate change science is complicated and the impact of climate change upon societies is even more complicated. Consensus exists only as far as “it is really happening and it really is a problem”. The knock-on idea is that we should do something about it.

Not sure what you’re saying about dissenting ideas. Thirty years ago when someone was talking about global cooling it didn’t attract the sort of respect now afforded to the body of evidence for climate change. – 10,000 person conferences, world leaders agreeing etc.

I disagree that dissenting opinion about climate change is unseen. Since the UNFCCC (1992) there has been an enormous amount of dissent. This dissent, the honest ebb and flow progress of the scientific community AND the less than honest political lobbying by certain industries (much along the lines of “smoking does not cause cancer”) is why it has taken 14 of the most technologically advanced years in history since the whole world agreed there was a problem worth examining to now, the world agreeing to take collective action.

And yep, I did fly to Montreal and I did offset my emissions.
See: http://www.climatecare.org/airtravelcalc/airtravelcalc.cfm
It cost me 5 pounds.
Posted by martin callinan, Monday, 12 December 2005 5:33:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I require data not opinions.Where is the data."OREGON INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND MEDICINE ' 17000 members is only one of many who refute
your claims.

macp
Posted by ANGLE, Tuesday, 13 December 2005 5:28:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You have got to be joking!

These are the gentlemen that fabricated The Oregon Petition, which I think you are also alluding to?

You’ll find the names of most of the Doctors from M*A*S*H on that bullsh*t petition.

Sorry cobber, you’ve been had.

See what Sourcewatch makes of your cyberspace outfit:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Oregon_Institute_of_Science_and_Medicine

If you want data, then see
http://www.ipcc.ch/

As an introduction, see Pachauri’s statement in Montreal last week for an overview of what data exists, what it refers to and where the source data can be found.
http://www.ipcc.ch/press/sp-07122005.htm

Or if you are uncomfortable with the international science community then examine the work of the US Government at http://www.climatescience.gov/ or the Australian Government http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/science/accsp/index.html. Though be aware that US and Australian scientists were, and continue to be, major contributors to the IPCC and UNFCCC.
Posted by martin callinan, Tuesday, 13 December 2005 7:16:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
IPCC. You cant be serious. IPCC was caught fudging data back 1994 and has'nt changed.
Dr. Stephen Schneider. A prominent spokesman for your views .In the 70's he was advocating global cooling.He was quoted in Discover Magazine in 1989 "To capture the public imagination , we have to offer up some scary scenarios , make dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts we might have. Each of us to decide the right balance in being effective , and being honest'.
I have been an enviromentalist for over 60 years . In the 60's I opposed all new irrigation licenses on Lachlan River in NSW.
For a balanced view try.ICCF ; TCS ,CCNet , The Register , CO2 Science , TCS , Friends of Science ,*john-daly.com,I have a list of required reading if you wish.
macp
Posted by ANGLE, Wednesday, 14 December 2005 6:09:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Angle,

Those are just more partisan websites, peddling politics, see who they are and who funds them.

Didn't you say you wanted data and not opinions?

e.g.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change

http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=Tech_Central_Station

Instead of virtual political outfits with P.O. Box addresses, give us the name of a peer reviewed climatology journal that supports your claims or counters mine? Even better, give us the title of one recent paper.

I do require your list of reading. Please post it. I don't take anything any politician (our their proxy web sites) says without checking the facts.

Show us the science not just more rhetoric.
Posted by martin callinan, Wednesday, 14 December 2005 7:17:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello Martin
I went to the calculator that you posted. If you had flown from Sydney to Montreal and return, you should have paid at least 29 pounds and 9 pence. Therefore you still owe 24 pounds and 9 pence.
Maybe you went by sailing boat most of the way.
All your postings prove is that no layman can believe a word of what anyone says about climate change. The IPCC especially, in view of what it fails to mention about the subject, cannot be believed.
All we can really say for sure is that the climate is changing. This is not news, it has been changing for the last four billion years or so.
The point I’m making is that it appears to me, as a layman, that the science is not completely settled, there is a lot of debate still going on, and yet you are expecting Governments (and in fact succeeding in scaring them) into making far reaching economic decisions based on your views.
It’s no good saying (or implying) that all opponents are in the pay of the fossil fuel industries.
Climatologists are in the pay of universities, research institutes or whomsoever employs them. As some critics say, the pressure is on all climate scientists to go along with the fashionable viewpoint, which guarantees funding to the research or other institutions involved.
The only thing I really agree with you on (in another article you wrote) is that we should have a sensible and honest debate about our energy future. However, the waters seem to be continually muddied by the fact that no-one can really agree on what needs to be done, and there seems to be many, on both sides of the debate, pushing their own interests, whether financial or ideological.
Posted by Froggie, Wednesday, 14 December 2005 10:04:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Froggie,

See how much it is from New York. Maybe I live in New York. It’s minus 7 outside and I can see the chrysler building; pretty sure I do.

If you can’t believe the IPCC or the collective view of the international scientific community, then, I guess by your analogy, you’ll not avail yourself of the scientific benefits of modern medicine. Why should you? You don’t understand how every part of the body works, it isn't clear, and you apparently distrust international science.

If you trust someone to tell you what’s wrong with your heart, then you should trust someone to tell you what’s wrong with the climate. Same goes for treatment.

Heart surgeons are in the pay of someone too, but, their work has scientific integrity and they stand, in the eyes of their peers and community, on their record.

I can list the web sites of plenty of Pro climate change outfits. I don’t because we all know what they have to say. I point, instead, to scientists whose pure job it is to find out what’s going on. Sure, scientists can be bought, but if they depart from the truth they soon find themselves irrelevant. None wants that. Just ask all the doctors and scientists that testified that smoking doesn’t cause cancer, some were honestly mistaken but most were helping themselves.

A sensible and honest debate: that’d be great. Unfortunately there is political mileage in debasing simple truths and virtues. The only reason I have spent an hour of my life over the last few days on this forum is to defend what I reckon are just the simple truths.

There is legitimate debate to be had about what to do about climate change, and this is where political debate will be purely constructive.

Determining physical truths though I leave to scientists but we can’t fix things until we agree on what the problem is.
Posted by martin callinan, Wednesday, 14 December 2005 2:57:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Following for a balanced view of environental question.With particular note of bibliography's.A Moment on The Earth by Greg Easterbrook ; Playing God in Yellowstone by Alston Chase ; Climate History and The Modern World by HH Lamb ; The Great Maya Droughts by Richardson Gill ; State of Fear by Michael Crichton ; The Little Ice Age by Brian Fagan ; Enviromental Overkill by Dixy Lee Ray ;etc. The Webb site of "john-daly.com" 2735241 hits to present.All dodgy data and opinions analysed . Particular interest is Isle of Dead .

macp
Posted by ANGLE, Thursday, 15 December 2005 6:44:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Martin
Well I'm glad you did pay the correct amount. You'll notice that I said "If you had flown from Sydney..."
I presume it went to planting a tree or something to mitigate the effects of the CO2. Which shows that even if there is a problem with CO2 emissions we have a way of off-setting them. Of course it costs us a bit more, but anyway, I don't mind paying a little more for my electricity or whatever to help the planet. That is, if CO2 really is a problem. Is it really? Or will it just help more plants to grow faster?
One cannot compare heart surgery with climate change. A more apt comparison might be with those computer models that people use to predict the outcome of horse races.
I refer you to the list of climate change dissenters (previously posted) and some of their criticisms, which you have not been able to deny.
A case in point is the situation in the Arctic regions, which is often used by climate change advocates to advance their ideas about global warming.
If you go to the link below you will see that a large number of climatologists put these changes in the Arctic down to natural causes, and nothing unusual. These are not my words, but those of the climatologists who have studied the situation. The comments of these scientists are particularly revealing.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2004/12/10/open-letter-to-senator-mccain/

I presume that you are not going to go against these scientists, seeing that you have such faith in them.
Maybe after reading these comments you can understand why a layman might be a little sceptical.
Posted by Froggie, Thursday, 15 December 2005 7:45:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Froggie and Angle,

Thanks for your time. You both contest that I have not been able to deny your, erm, climate experts. I, and other readers, I reckon I have.

Have you produced one climatologist who has recently “published” or world leader who has “said” that anthropocentric forced climate change isn’t happening? Nope.

Fiction writers, political web sites, conspiracy sites, right wing media figures, lobbyists and (from your earlier and latest list Froggie) scientists “who are not actually denying climate change” is all you can come up with.

Did you even look at the US and Australian Government web sites?

You guys are not layman though, don’t misrepresent yourselves. It takes a special effort to deny every government in the world, every scientific body and common sense to adopt the arguments, such as they are, for climate change denial.

The scary thing is, I hope you’re right. I truly hope climate change isn’t happening. The world could really do with one less major problem. So I would love to see evidence to this end, which is why offering me fiction writers just saddens me.

Martin

PS I had to laugh at the worldclimatereport.com’s mission statement:

This popular web log points out the weaknesses and outright fallacies in the science that is being touted as “proof” of disastrous warming. It’s the perfect antidote against those who argue for proposed changes to the Rio Climate Treaty, such as the Kyoto Protocol, which are aimed at limiting carbon emissions from the United States.
Posted by martin callinan, Thursday, 15 December 2005 9:31:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy