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 > Australia: toeing the Bush climate line > Comments

Australia: toeing the Bush climate line : Comments

By Martin Callinan, published 22/12/2005

Martin Callinan argues climate change is a serious threat weighing on the future of mankind.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Good article. The march of folly continues.

Sorry, but the pedant in me says you spell your title "toeing the line." It means "putting your toe on a line" (as a troop of soldiers on the training ground) not "towing it away."
Posted by Daev Keli, Thursday, 22 December 2005 11:57:29 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good Lord Martin, surely you are not suggesting Bush and the United States dictate our every move, the war in Iraq, our climate control policy, economics etc. If you are this has come as a complete schock to me, I thought we were a soverign nation. We have different views to the Yanks on....I'm thinking.....I'll get back to you.
Posted by SHONGA, Thursday, 22 December 2005 12:20:44 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
Thanks Daev Keli,
Susan (OLO editor)
Posted by SusanP, Thursday, 22 December 2005 2:44:07 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
Some interesting data from Montreal:

Some countries that moralise on reducing emission are Canada, Japan, Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Greece.

The emissions from these countries have risen by 24%, 18%, 42%, 37%, respectively, and for Ireland and Greece, an increase of 26% for both.

Against this ‘brilliant’ performance from the Kyoto Protocol lickspittles, the emissions of the USA, which continues to reject Kyoto, rose by only 13%, 2% of which has occurred during President Bush’s watch.

Why shouldn’t Australia follow America?
Posted by Leigh, Thursday, 22 December 2005 2:50:44 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
Leigh, you are in a distinct little lunatic right group, so these countries have not met their obligation, they have the intent to do so "why shouldn't Australia follow the US " indeed. Half of our economy is owned by them, you would think that would be enough, but alas, they want to enforce their culture, their thinking, their way on us. That is fine for you cellar dwellers, lunatic right rednecks, however some of us are PROUD AUSTRALIANS, with our own culture, which we are proud of, and would no more adopt the Yank culture than the Russians, or anyone else's for that matter. You are a bloody hyocrite if you were proud of your country, you would want an independant Australia, not an Australia who follows anyone, but a nation who makes up it's own mind, an Australia that we don't have at present. Your views of life irratate me, but I respect your right to hold those views, if only your aggogance would allow me the same privilage, not a common trait for your misguided view on life, along with your other half a dozen lunatic, redneck "right." Sadly you view the opposite to right to be wrong, which is not the case, it is left. You see the beauty of Australia, pre 1996 was the "right" to express an opinion, whether or not others agreed with you, it seems now that you think we should all think your way, wake up and smell the roses, that will never happen.
Posted by SHONGA, Thursday, 22 December 2005 9:13:59 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
Leigh said, "<breathtaking inanity>"

As tedious and undeserving of a counter as it is, I will suffer it. Those countries you listed have no obligation to do anything as there is no agreement in place. Furthermore, actually reducing their emissions while other countries refused would have a negative effect on their economy. They are locked into competition with the countries that refuse to reduce emissions until everyone (especially the largest economies in the world) agrees to reduce emissions, read this carefully, at the same time. I know that is a difficult concept for you to grasp Leigh, but you must if you are to shed the sinful ignorance you wear with pride.

Btw were you going to add Swaziland to that list?..Rofl -_-
Posted by Steel, Friday, 23 December 2005 1:23:56 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
Leigh said, "2% of which has occurred during President Bush’s watch."

Stop hanging off his balls like their lollipops. Something for Leigh, http://www.russellbeattie.com/notebook/1008125.html
Posted by Steel, Friday, 23 December 2005 1:36:33 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
Shonga, what a tirade. If someone quoting facts to you, can get you so upset, what would ideas do?
Man made green house is a myth, perpetuated by researchers who have invested their career in the myth, & must rave to keep the dollars comming. I have no faith in the objectivity of any of their pronouncements, & never could have, when they refuse to look at all the information available.
In 1970 I asked an old Queensland fisherman, who had not got through junior high school, what the hundreds of acres of thick brown scum was, on barrier reef waters. He told me it was dead coral spore, & explained how the coral released its spore in a single wave.
22 years later some marine biology researchers announce that THEY have made a momentous discovery. Give me a break.
If the dinosaurs had been able to control the planet, we would not exist. The shear arrogance of people who think the planet is now perfect, & must be kept unchanged, because it suits us, takes my breath away.
We are just another species which will, in tine, become extinct, with or without our own help. When we do, the planet will keep a small fossil record of our passing, & the effect of our tenure will be about as momentous as that of the dinosaurs.
Its time for the green house researchers to get a real job
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 23 December 2005 2:29:36 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
Leigh,

Emissions in almost all countries are rising; this is the problem all countries are trying to address. I am not sure why you say some countries with stark emission increases are ‘brilliant’ performers? The fact that these countries, with additional work to do, are demanding action of themselves and others says a great deal about how seriously they take the threat of climate change.

Australia’s energy and transport emissions since 1990, for instance, have risen by about 30% (by 2003, the latest figures released).

Total US emissions since 1990 have risen by 15.8% (up 2% since 2003, by 2004), 3 percentage points of which has happened since 2000, despite a recession and, importantly, an increasingly service driven economy.

ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oiaf/1605/cdrom/pdf/ggrpt/057304.pdf

By 2008, the Bush Administration will have overseen a rise of at least 6% (the total tonnage of this increase is equivalent to Australia’s total emissions today) and, through political and infrastructure investment, have locked-in further rises, refused to lead international efforts to address climate change and multiplied the costs of future efforts to reduce emissions.

Australia shouldn’t follow the Bush Administration on this issue because the US Senate, most US states and almost every other nation on earth are heading in the opposite direction.

Hasbeen,

So we’re all gunna die anyway, hmmm, so why bother with anything? I see no point in harming ourselves and I reckon your pension and your kid’s ‘real jobs’ will depend upon the degree of climate change we experience.
Posted by martin callinan, Friday, 23 December 2005 4:54:46 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
Shonga,

I am very confused. How can someone who obviously has so much intelligence and moral superiorty regards climate change, foreign relations, racial relations and global economic theory end up slaving away at the whim of some evil boss for decades as you have told us in previous posts.

Either you are extremely intelligent except when it comes to your own life or your are just plain wrong.

(and please, as i have asked you before - check your bloody spelling. If you can't spell, run your posts through spell check first.)

Martin - The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he didn't exist. The greatest trick the greenies ever pulled was convincing the world global warming exists.

Has any other doom and gloom scenario encompassed such a broad marketing agenda;

Checklist
If it is hot - global warming
If it is cold - global warming
If it floods - global warming
If there is drought - global warming
If there is a hurricane - global warming
If there is tsunami - global warming.
If George Bush sneezes - global warming

Please tell me if there is any weather event which can't be attributed to the great global warming.

Anyone would think the earth has had a flat stable temperature which has only just started changing.

Everyone talks about the weather - let's make is so every event can be linked to a phenomenon which will require a downtrun in economic productivity.

My hat goes off to you for a great campaign. Much slicker than anything ol' Rupert could conjure.

t.u.s.
Posted by the usual suspect, Friday, 23 December 2005 9:44:12 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's a great pity than so many people who use this site are unable to read well enough to understand what other people, whom they obviously hate for disagreeing with them, actually say. They are products of the left style of education, no doubt.

I would like to advise them that I'm flattered by their interest in my opinions. I cannot return the compliment however, as I have absolutley no interest in their abusive, semi-literate and uninformed rantings.

Name calling, poor spelling and the inability to put two words together in a coherent manner are a very poor basis for telling other people what to do in a forum relying on the written world. I suggest to these people that they stick to talking garbage with their drunken mates in the front bar
Posted by Leigh, Friday, 23 December 2005 10:04:51 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
Yes, Hasbeen. I overlooked the fact that Shonga gave me the benefit of his abuse merely for quoting someone else. That's haters for you, though.

The other intellectual giant, Steel, quoted me as saying "breathtaking inanity", which I didn't say at all. He is even dimmer that we think -he either doesn't know what quotation marks mean, or he meant to say that what I said was breathtakingly inane, in his opinion. Even though the figures I quoted were fact and not my own!

So choked up with rage is the poor fellow, that he wasted both his 2 posts in 24 hours on little old me.

Just imagine what society would be like if their fevered rantings were taken seriously. Fortunately for Austalia, they wouldn't have the wit to even cast a formal vote.
Posted by Leigh, Friday, 23 December 2005 3:38:00 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: Bush is correct and we are right to follow the US lead.

Is it getting hot in here? Recent article casts doubt on greenhouse warming:

Pollution May Slow Warming; Cleaner Air May Speed It, Study Says

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/22/science/earth/22climate.html?8br

Comment:

This research has sounded the death knell for greenhouse gas global warming theories.
Some other mechanism will be required to account for the increase in the observed warming of the atmosphere.
Warming ocean surfaces is the logical answer and increased heat output from an upsurge in tectonic activity is the probable etiology.
Where we are in the ice ages cycle indicates that this increased tectonic activity and heating is the result of interior earth cooling and subsequent short term (O~100Yr) crustal shrinkage of the earth.

Additionally, the above research opens the door for a thermodynamic approach to solving the process of stochastic redistribution of tectonic heat at ocean surfaces and thus climate change. By controlling large ocean masses of human pollutants which represent INTRINSIC high entropy zones we may be able to deflect climate changes representing low entropy atmospheric and oceanic mass movements away from large populated areas of the planet.

For another reason to follow tyhe US see:

big-win-for-defenders-of-alaskan-wilderness

http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/big-win-for-defenders-of-alaskan-wilderness/2005/12/22/1135032135885.htm
Posted by KAEP, Friday, 23 December 2005 5:20:16 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
And another thing Martin,

When all those thousands of gravy trainers such as yourself attended the Montreal Climate Change conference, did they all walk to Canada.
Or did they catch planes. Did they sleep in environmentally friendly hemp tents or in swashy hotels with heating and lighting.

What about yourself. Can you document the amount of times you have caught a plane to a conference or on a work trip in the last five years. How many emmissions in each trip.

I have had five plane trips in the last three years and try to walk to work as often as possible.

Seriously I would like to know. You once corrected a sarcastic post of mine about chinese people farting with actual emmission statistics so I am hoping you can use the same kind of analysis for your emmissions.

They would be more than the majority of people, maybe even in the top 15-20 per cent of high emmitters.

You are either setting standards for others which you do not commit to yourself (like a true do-gooder) or you are a self-important liar who sees a good scam and jumps on board. Or both.

Hypocrite.

t.u.s.
Posted by the usual suspect, Friday, 23 December 2005 8:54:22 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
To T.U.S. the explanation's always simple. If you find a drama and you think a conspiracy story explains it, you're gonna “find out” you're right.

No one can attribute one weather event to global warming. This is the difference between the weather and the climate. The point is that the climate is changing much FASTER than usual; that this unprecedented RAPID change is going to be inconvenient; and that we would do well to avoid this inconvenience.

KAEP, I read the article in Nature to which you refer and, as the title clearly says, it’s about the dynamics of warming potentials of haze! Your conclusion that it somehow “casts doubt on greenhouse warming” is lazy at best and your ‘death knell’ attempt to spin this as evidence that refutes climate change is misleading in the extreme.

Pray, quote us the passage from the paper that agrees with your interpretation.

Did you read the Nature article, my article or the above posts? Does science or the arguments have any bearing on your view? You cite a SMH account of US Senate blocking the Bush Administration’s attempts to open up the Alaskan wildlife refuge to oil companies. Great, this is the point I am making. The US Senate disagrees with Bush on what to do about climate change. Both, by the way, acknowledge the validity of climate change science. See below what the US Senate says about climate change. You’ll see why I appreciate the US Senate and not the Bush Administration.

http://energy.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=234715&Month=6&Year=2005&Party=0

T.U.S., the enlightenment wasn’t a fad. You can demonize all you like but I can tell from everything else you’ve written that you hold rationality as your primary means of organizing things. Hence, the only debating option you have left is personal derision. It’s pretty boring mate.

Yes, I do account for and offset my greenhouse gas emissions. No doubt you’ll be shocked, just shocked, to learn that it costs very little.

My plane trip to Montreal, for instance, cost five (5) pounds to offset (New York to Montreal, return). Offset your travel emissions via this website:

http://www.climatecare.org/airtravelcalc/airtravelcalc.cfm
Posted by martin callinan, Saturday, 24 December 2005 3:00:17 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,

From NYtimes: "If people clean up the air, more warming will come blazing through," Jim Coakley, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Oregon State University in Corvallis, said yesterday in a telephone interview. Nature selected Dr. Coakley to write a commentary on the study.

This indicates the NYTimes article supersedes the original Nature article.

And the following indicates Greenhouse warming theory is kaput. It particularly indicates that Kyoto is a waste of time, that Bush is correct to repudiate Kyoto and Australia is correct to follow the US:
Consequently, continued aerosol emission controls may lead to a stronger warming than current model predictions," the researchers wrote.

Also, the Bush administration only has two years to run. I have tried to steer your assertion to whether Australia is right to follow the US Congress and senate. This is more appropriate. It is my understanding, following US politics as I do, that these bodies will NEVER agree to Kyoto under any future US administration. So I am glad you appreciate US senate sentiments because that means you will finally accept the demise of Kyoto and the fact that Howard's stance on Kyoto has been vindicated. Otherwise you will have to turn around and villify the US senate as well.

In the meantime there has just (today) been a spate of earthquakes off Nias. This continues to signify an unprecedented increase in quakes across the globe since the Iran quake some years ago and peaking with the 2005 Boxing day Tsunami event. Evidence is mounting that the interior of the Earth is cooling and as it does, crustal readjustments will increase, yielding a short term increase in biospheric heat. It is important to note that energy from deep ocean tectonic events does not heat deep ocean waters as they have high thermal conductivity and transfer heat rapidly to surface ocean levels.
Posted by KAEP, Monday, 26 December 2005 1:24:01 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,

One further point. By definition, Global Greenhouse warming theory predicts chaos, social and economic disturbance and loss of the ability of humans to function as efficiently as now. The theory implies this state will worsen rapidly with time and may 'runaway'. In thermodynamics, that definition is described as an approaching thermal equilibrium and it is necessarily associated with a reduction of energy or ordered states to the Biosphere. Now the opposite is occurring because net energy into the biosphere from insolation and tectonic and geothermal sources clearly exceeds losses. As proof of this, human civilisations continue to grow and become more ordered and modernised over time despite climate changes and the advent of the putative global warming scenario.

The beauty of a tectonic theory of warming is that it fits the thermodynamic requirement that any current warming will be temporary, as continued energy pumping of the biosphere must eventually keep the biosphere at highly ordered levels of functioning. A byproduct of this thermodynamic analysis also implies that the biosphere must have a thermostat and that fluctuations will exist about a set temperature depending on fluctuations in solar and geothermal input levels.

I might also add that from an applied mathematics perspective, trying to solve complex biospheric dynamics without first having a solid appreciation of the thermodynamics involved is an exceedingly LAZY approach. I do not understand how run of the mill climate scientists manage to get away with this.
Posted by KAEP, Monday, 26 December 2005 1:26:04 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
Australia is not towing the USA line - if we had gone along with the myth of Kyoto we could equally be accused of towing the French line. In simple terms Kyoto was flawed and asinine.

The idea of marketing "carbon credits" is a complete load of crap which lacked commercial accountability, inspection or regulation beyond the twisted thinking of the dolts and buffoons who created wine and olive oil lakes and butter mountains to be sold off outside Europe whilst European consumers could not afford to buy at their domestic price.

It is the sort of piffling drivel which intrigues small minded socialists and assuages their sense of egalitarianism where we all suffer together rather than get on and do what we individually need to do.

Australia and USA have stood alone against the pressure and blackmail of the demented Kyoto hoardes. All credit to USA and Australia for showing strength and leadership instead of hog-tying their economies with the short of rubbish which requires New Zealand Dairy Farmers to pay a levy for the cubic meterage of farts their cattle emit.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 26 December 2005 8:07:14 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, you miss my point entirely.
I agree that global warming may effect may the future of the species, but only effect, not destroy.
If we could survive ice ages, armed with a fire stick, & a sharp stone, we will survive a warmer planet.
Nothing we have, or will do, will have any meaningful effect on the temperature of the planet.
Yes, we have changed the face of Australia, almost as much as the aboriginals did with their fire sticks. But do you expect to believe these changes are anything but infinitesimal, compared to the changes caused by the continent drifting from antarctica to where it
is now.
May be you expect me to believe we have had an effect equal to that of India, crashing into Asia.
Core drillings, on the barrier reef have shown periods of 30 years
drier than the driest year recorded in our limited records, but when those dry times come again, & they will, It will be "our" green house, won't it?
The new cry. The Barrier reef is 1/2 degrees hotter, its going to die. No mention ahat the Red Sea is 3 degrees hotter, & the coral thrives. No research dollars in that.
I get so sick of the fragile environment rubbish. Its our built enviornment which is fragile.
I have seen the WW2 airstrips, which launched a million raids on Japan, where you could not get a hang glider in through the trees.
I have seen the 3 Ft diameter trees exploding the 8 Ft deep concrete where the machime shops were.
If you must stroke your ego by thinking you can change the planet, try to do something about the ozone layer. That may be our falt, & its serious, & we may even be able to effect that.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 27 December 2005 12:57:19 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
One other little thing. If the Gulf stream continues to slow, or even stops, as has been predicted by the green house lobby, just listen for the cry from your beloved France & the other European countries. It won't be stop the green house, it will be "burn more coal, warm us up". These self serving countries, that you so admire, are interrested on only one thing, whats good for them.
Its a pitty for them that its a myth, because it won't make any difference.
If the ozone hole were over Europe, there would be much more interest in fixing it, & green house would be history.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 27 December 2005 1:17:02 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
KAEP,

Those lines you quote in NO WAY refute the understanding that human induced climate change will cause us problems.

When a next US administration takes over in 2009, they will, as the US Senate has explicitly indicated, undertake mandatory measures so that they can reduce greenhouse emissions.

How has John Howard's stance on Kyoto has been vindicated? Emission reductions are needed and the Bush Administration, with Australia’s support, has stymied world efforts to do this. John Howard’s stance on Kyoto has been vindicated only in terms of good will towards the Bush Administration. Maybe this is worthwhile? I doubt it though.

World efforts to reduce emissions (Kyoto) continue. This is a fact. And it remains unfortunate that the US and Australia have chosen not to be part of this effort.

Geodynamics: Isn’t it possible that the rapid nature of atmospheric changes, induced by the sudden human contribution of extra greenhouse gases can have a rapid effect on our climate without having any impact, over the same timeframe, upon our planet’s core temperature? And I simply can’t accept your ‘thermostat’ idea. There’s no one ‘right level’. The earth core no doubt is changing but on the 10 million year scale, the climate on the 10,000 year scale and biosphere on the 100 year scale. The point is that we live at the 100 year scale and we are inducing a rapid climatic change that endangers our own species.

Col,

Collective action and organization provides every civil benefit you know and enjoy. Efforts to address climate change apparently strike you as a socialist plot to rob you of the freedoms and comforts that your society provides. Let’s hope society is wrong about climate change and will continue to maintain your lifestyle.

Hasbeen,

I see your many points and disagree with them. You should publish your conclusions in an academic journal. If your conclusions have any substance the scientific world will be revolutionized by them.
Posted by martin callinan, Tuesday, 27 December 2005 5:05:29 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 “Collective action and organization provides every civil benefit you know and enjoy.”

Ah one of the classic lies of the socialist.

The difference with the truth is summed up in the statement

“one volunteer is worth ten pressed men”

In other words – sure collective interaction is the source of almost all human activity but
“Collective action” is not “socialism” when the activists “collect” freely – as in free trade or free market.
Socialism requires that element of authority and central control which “dictates” and ”commands” people as to where and how they will “collectively act” . Like using "carbon emissions" as a dubious “science” on which to base a “disincentive to individual development”.

Nice manipulation of the truth Martin, most imaginative, for a socialist. However, as flawed and corrupt as all socialist thinking.

“Socialism” is not the exclusive catalyst for collective action, “individual need and wants and perceived benefit is (eg the want to barter or “exchange”). The process of exchange has been going on for many millennia before socialists from pond life and will continue far beyond the time they are all reduced to dust.

As for maintain my lifestyle – I am responsible for maintaining my lifestyle, not society. If someone wants to live in an unimaginative cesspool of socialist glory – let them but I will always be fighting for the rights of individuals to act individually.
All human advancement has always been the result of “individual action” (even collectively which is, invariably, lead by individuals excepting the “mob”).

Now maybe you can enlighten us to how well our “collective existence” is advanced by fitting gas metres to the bums of NZ cattle to accurately measure their methane emissions.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 27 December 2005 7:50:02 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
Hasbeen & Leigh
You two are obviously correct, which means everyone else is wrong. When the Meterology Dept tells us we are expieriencing the hottest year in history, they are wrong it's a "socialist conspiracy" correct children. What is it about the lunatic redneck right that can't/won't accept reality, 2004 was a degree hotter than 2003, and 2005 a further 1.5 degrees hotter again, do you think this happens by accident, no wonder I lose my cool from time to time. We put people through university so that they may follow a profession, then some lunatics won't accept what they are being told by the very professionals trained to give the information, where do you lose the plot, how simple can it be. We must lower our reliance on fossil fuels like coal, and offset it with smarter technology, e.g. hydro, solar,wind power etc. You don't need a masters degree to understand that surely. Is Hydro, solar or wind power "socialist orientated" I am in a lighter mood tonight, however I suspect you two, and a few others belived Pig Iron Bob Menzies when he spoke about "the yellow peril" or "reds under the beds" please come to your senses and realise how much damage we have done to this continent in 200 years of occupation, compared to the previous 80,000 years. I am not a Green, but someone who can accept what is placed in front of me, if there is tangable evidence to confirm it, black is black, not a shade of grey, wake up and smell the roses.
Posted by SHONGA, Tuesday, 27 December 2005 9:59:41 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
Shoga, For a rationale debate see Ian Lowe - President of the Australian Conservation Foundation; emeritus professor of science, technology and society at Griffith University.

His publication on this topic is titled- Living In The Hothouse: How Global Warming Affects Australia Publisher: Scribe.

Ian does not present a fatalistic approach to the topic but he does consider global warming to be one the biggest problems we don't debate.

See: http://www.scribepub.com.au/New%20Releases/Living%20Hothouse.htm
Posted by Rainier, Tuesday, 27 December 2005 10:33:44 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Where do you lose the plot?

Where indeed.

There is no such thing as global warming. it is a THERMODYNAMIC impossibility on this planet at this time in geological history. Human impacts on the environment can redistribute thermodynamic heat and create conditions for CLIMATE CHANGES, principally through wastewater dumping in coastal oceans (much more that in the atmosphere). Humans cannot change the trajectory of biospheric cooling and natural oscillations within that trajectory. See fig 1-6 in http://muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBook/history_of_climate.html
for details of this trajectory over the past 3 million years.

Solving COMPLEX biospheric systems without due regard to TOTAL energy inventories is typical of specialist scientists who are not trained in Applied Mathematics as a first tier subject. People do what they are trained for and if that means solving one dynamic within an exceedingly complex system like the biosphere then that is what they will do. This is a mistake. Scientists make mistakes like anyone.

More sober minds are far more cautious and although they cannot solve the dynamic equations within the biosphere (science cannot even solve the dynamic equations within a humble bacterium) they know from thermodynamic endpoint analysis and the muller diagram that the biosphere is cooling and oscillates about a set temperature at any period of geologic time.

Further, due to natural processes like compaction and due to strong inhomogeneity within the biosphere, records of our era in a million years time will NOT show anything more that what we see in the muller diagram (fig 1-6)now, no matter how spruiked out we have become by myopic politicial pundits in scientific expert's clothing.

As time goes on from here, the sheer unpredictability of imminent climate changes will all but rule out global warming as a cause. Global warming theory is very specific about the global homogeneity of it's effects and the gradual increase in its effects with time. For example the 2006 US hurricane season will be worse than 2005 and will all but squash greenhouse warming theories because the change is occurring too quickly.
Posted by KAEP, Wednesday, 28 December 2005 3:10:26 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