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 > Climate change denial > Comments

Climate change denial : Comments

By Clive Hamilton, published 3/5/2007

Most Australians are no longer in a state of denial: they are facing up to the truth about global warming.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 16
  7. 17
  8. 18
  9. Page 19
  10. 20
  11. All
Isn't it funny how everyone who questions the AGW theory isn't joining the debate, instead they are spreading "misinformation at best" or have a "a disingenuous agenda at worst" and will "will stifle any discussion". I've always thought there are 2 sides in a debate.

I would only look at the IPCC report cited above as realclimate is just a tad biased. It was set up to try and defend a certain hockey stick which is broken and hanging limply. Also avoid the Summary for Policymakers in the IPCC report as it is a political chapter.
Posted by alzo, Tuesday, 29 May 2007 8:42:15 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
Alzo, you might “only want to look at the IPCC report” and that is your prerogative, as is your bias against the “realclimate” website. At least you have looked.

Is it not reasonable to suggest others look so they can also adequately contribute to any discussion, as you yourself are?

Of course there are 2 sides to a debate (do you really think I am that stupid?). All I am saying is that to contribute to the debate in a constructive way, people should understand some fundamental principles of climate science – to this end the “realclimate” site is good.

I agree the SPM is a political summary. It is problematic to get policy makers from different cultures, countries and ideologies to agree on things – look at the war on the weapons of mass destruction. At least they’re trying (more so than others) and they can’t all be wrong – not even the scientists can’t all be wrong.

Most governments, religions, business leaders, scientific bodies, et al around the world are dealing with climate change – why not help tackle the problem and give constructive suggestions?

It is my view (rightly or wrongly) that most people who debunk climate change do so not on the basis of the science, but rather on their own politics, ideologies, vested interests, religion, stupidity (and I don’t mean this in a bad way – they just don’t know) etc.

When 2 sides take opposing views, nothing gets solved. Is it not more rational to work together in solving problems?
Posted by davsab, Tuesday, 29 May 2007 10:15:54 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
"Most governments, religions, business leaders, scientific bodies, et al around the world are dealing with climate change – why not help tackle the problem and give constructive suggestions?"
Would you class a "wait for proof" suggestion as constructive? Maybe let advancing technologies catch up to help solve the perceived problem of elevated atmospheric CO2. One positive coming out of the current hysteria is that large sums of R&D money are being thrown into finding alternative energy sources. This is something which would be required in a post fossil fuel age anyway but gets us further down that inevitable track.

Climate change is very real. Human induced climate change is real. Catastrophic climate change caused by human emitted CO2 is a farce. The coming catastrophe being peddled by the media and green groups is greatly exaggerated and not supported by many IPCC scientists. I have based all my views on the available science. If evidence comes to light that my view is wrong I would change my mind. So far the science is far from certain.

"When 2 sides take opposing views, nothing gets solved. Is it not more rational to work together in solving problems?"
Opposing views help to determine that a problem is real and that it is addressable. I'm not convinced in either case yet.
Posted by alzo, Tuesday, 29 May 2007 11:34:38 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
In order to address CO2, I mean REALLY address it, we're talking massive cuts. It's not a matter of installing a few compact fluoro light bulbs or even buying a hybrid car. We're talking:
- opting out of air travel,
- saying 'no' to food and goods produced a long way away,
- ending the mining boom,
- living closer to work, or working closer to home,
- living closer to family & friends,
- riding bikes, taking the bus EVERYWHERE, or at best car pooling

These things all disrupt our way of life in massive ways. Even entering a car-pool disrupts one's freedom to enjoy after-work commitments. Opting out of air travel means no more "weekend getaways" or end-of-year footy trips to Bali. And ending the mining boom could send the country spiralling into a recession.

It's a pretty hard message to sell.

The ironic thing is that all the while we are racing towards Peak Oil (and gas, and coal), which will force our hand on all of these lifestyle changes any way. Think about it: a high carbon price of $50/tCO2 would add just 11 cents to every litre of petrol we burn. But when Peak Oil starts to bite, an 11 cent increase will look pretty small.
Posted by James Ward, Tuesday, 29 May 2007 11:52:20 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
“Would you class a wait for proof suggestion as constructive?”
Alzo, my short answer in the context of this current dialogue is no.

No scientist will give you absolute proof as your question implies, although laypeople (not trained in climate science) apparently demand. If that were the case, nothing would ever get done and humanity would truly be mired in the dark ages.

It is the antithesis of science itself to accept without question (scientists are sceptics) that as espoused by others. Scientists critique and evaluate, that is the process by which they publish their theories/findings and review that of others.

The IPCC review procedure is an impressive endeavour but remember that they are only the messengers that have evaluated the scientific papers – a vast undertaking and by nature of the process, conservative. The only consensus is that they are now very concerned.

Incidentally, the latest IPCC reports don’t include the most recent data and scientific findings about ice sheets/caps, glaciers, CO2 and ocean warming.

It's up to world leaders and others to decide what to do about that information, how we should adapt to GW and mitigate GHG emissions.

In terms of mitigation and base load power generation, nuclear is an option. I personally don’t believe OZ can afford it, our country is too big and diverse, it will take too long and construction generates a lot of GHG (e.g. cement and concrete manufacture). My preference is geothermal.

R&D is important, better than massive advertising campaigns at tax payer’s expense. Clean fossil fuel technology must be sought for OZ and other countries like China. There are opportunities.

You are right, catastrophic climate change is not predicted by the IPCC scenarios. Alarmist projections by certain politicians, media and ‘green’ groups do not help. It goes both ways though, the UK Channel 4 “Swindle” a case in point.

I agree, “Opposing views help to determine that a problem is real and that it is addressable”. Those views must of necessity, be rational.

At the end of the day, it comes down to environmental sustainability, all else depends on it.
Posted by davsab, Tuesday, 29 May 2007 3:57:56 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'm not after absolute proof. I'm after convincing evidence, so far they are yet to make the case. Climate science is just another branch of science. It should follow normal scientific principles and certainly should not be revered above any other field of science as it seems to be by climate scientists and their groupies. As for being "mired in the dark ages", this is exactly where we are headed if we plunge into a green utopian world without some forethought and planning.

Thankfully the "world leaders" are just elected officials in most of the influential countries. They will be swayed only by the majority decision. Again, I don't think the evidence is convincing enough yet for the majority to accept much other than token action (CFL's) or technological breakthroughs. I could accept nuclear or geothermal power phasing in to replace coal/gas. I would not accept the need for large energy consumption cuts as this will certainly impinge on people's lives.

I for one am happy to see the ABC will be presenting "Swindle" shortly. It presents an alternative view of the science from the so-called "dissenters, deniers and flat-earthers". They have some good rational points which haven't been adequately addressed by the "warmers".

I'm all for environmental sustainability but not if we have to go back to huddling together for warmth in a cave.
Posted by alzo, Wednesday, 30 May 2007 10:11:01 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 16
  7. 17
  8. 18
  9. Page 19
  10. 20
  11. All

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