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. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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