The Forum > Article Comments > Letter to Kevin Rudd: stop coal plants now > Comments
Letter to Kevin Rudd: stop coal plants now : Comments
By James Hansen, published 3/4/2008The science is unambiguous: if we burn most of the fossil fuels, releasing the CO2 to the air, we will assuredly destroy much of the fabric of life on the planet.
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- Page 3
- 4
- 5
- 6
-
- All
Posted by Q&A, Thursday, 3 April 2008 7:08:05 PM
| |
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Wilkins_Ice_Shelf_con.pdf
The only thing that is unambiguous about the science is just how shonky it is,and how often it has, and is, being caught out for practices that in any other discipline would land its perpetrators in jail Science in general has of course done many great things for humanity but Climatology should really be labelled Crimatology. Posted by bigmal, Thursday, 3 April 2008 7:22:15 PM
| |
To all those denialists , adamant and absolute in their refusal to accept a vast body of science, evidence of our own eyes and experience – what happens if you’re wrong? What are the consequences if nothing is done as you advocate and the worst case comes to pass? Would you take that risk with your child? The condition of your house? Your pet? Would you demand unequivocal levels of proof, would you latch on to every quibble, possible dispute, variation from prediction and diagnosis and utterly refuse to protect those things you love and value? I find your conduct bizarre, inexcusable and unutterably sad. I guess I understand now – some consolation – how we arrived at this dismal point in human and planetary history. Thanks.
Posted by next, Thursday, 3 April 2008 9:49:48 PM
| |
Next
If the science is a so overwhelming as you are trying to say then why is there a need to enage in fraudulent misrepresentation. If Al Gore as the oracle of all things AGW then why wont he submit a paper to peer review, as demanded of others who have the opposite POV. But we already know why Gore cant and wont debate thats because -- Gore is not allowed to speak in public about his “green investment company” because to do so would violate racketeering laws by “peddling a false prospectus.” Its so nice being a hypocrite but its a real worry when Barack Obama says he will give Gore a seat in his Cabinet --if elected Posted by bigmal, Friday, 4 April 2008 6:05:34 AM
| |
bigmal, your misrepresentation and slander are way too obvious. In five sentences you manage to fit in: fraudulent, oracle, racketeering, peddling, & hypocrite. Repetition is a basic principle of the science of propaganda, thanks for the demonstration.
Even Al Gore doesn't say he is "the oracle of all things AGW", only RightThinkers do that, and I think the vast majority of greenies wouldn't trust Gore further than they could throw the lardarse. Whats Gore got to do with how much coal companies should be liable for the costs of drought and extreme winds? Nothing, thats exactly WHY fossil fools talk about him so much. Posted by Liam, Friday, 4 April 2008 10:30:47 AM
| |
Policy makers in Australia clearly have no plans to mitigate our dependency on coal fired power stations.
This is evident when learning the newly approved Stage 2 of Griffin Coal’s “Bluewater” in WA will result in the company emitting some 2.6 million tonnes of C02 per annum, with government approval for a paltry commitment of 200-300,000 tonnes of offsets. I'm constantly amused by those who deny anthropogenic global warming but believe they can escape the consequences of anthropogenic pollution where all burnt carbon-based hazardous chemicals convert to C02. Seemingly, they ignore the ever-emerging signs placed for citizens warning of A/pollution, mainly a result of our dependency on hydrocarbon based chemicals. Last Wednesday, I witnessed bike riders, on a main road, wearing face masks. That once only applied to other countries like China, India or perhaps Mexico City where tourists are advised to keep their car windows closed due to the health impacts of inhaling a myriad of fossil fuel based chemicals. Those, ignorant on the impacts of A/pollution, need to know that here in sunny Australia, untreated, human faeces and industrial waste, which has been sanctioned by regulators, has been used by farmers as a fertilizer for commercial crops. In the US it is common practice, however, livestock which are also force-fed this diabolical waste, have been found dead in the paddocks. The survivors are consumed by humans. The health impacts of recycling these hazards through livestock to human consumption are mostly insidious - often tragic. The problem is not climatic change per se; but the rate of change. Change is happening fast and past history demonstrates that rapid climatic change is always accompanied by ecological collapse and mass extinction. Some paleontologists claim excessive, volcanic emissions of C02 (such as the Deccan Traps) were responsible for past collapses. Add some 6.5 billion humans polluting, pillaging, plundering and burning this planet, I believe the next collapse will be a "beauty." Hang on to ya hats folks - the science on anthropogenic pollution is conclusive and Mother Nature's constant objections are clearly evident and ominous. Posted by dickie, Friday, 4 April 2008 2:11:11 PM
|
You are correct, contrary to what Bob Carter et al continually spruik (you have to question their motives). The so called ‘hockey stick’ is in the AR4 and not just Mann’s. Numerous proxies by various researchers have come to the same conclusions.
Notwithstanding, you would agree it is not so prominent anymore due the vast array of other evidence.
It does bemuse me that people that are so critical of the UNFCCC or the IPCC don’t understand the processes or procedures; ratified by all world governments. These same people have not even read the technical reports, so what do you expect?
This tells me one thing, it really is not the science that drives there ambivalence or ‘denial’ … it is something else.
Sure, there may be other drivers or forcings that come into play, but until these are shown to pre-emanate AGW theory, it is just hypothesis.
Don’t get me wrong, I do think Hansen is an ‘alarmist’, but so too is Carter et al … from the opposite side of the spectrum.
It is not all doom and gloom as some would have us believe, but to deny that humanity has no impact on the environment is akin to living in the dark ages. We are 6.5 bil and heading to 9 bil by 2050 if the demographers are right. The planet is under enormous pressure and we are conducting an experiment never conducted before. It would be prudent to tread with caution.
And this is what all the countries and governments of the world are doing – the decision makers. It is and will be difficult, but they are.
So don’t be too concerned by your “deniers/delayers/delusionists”, they are out of the ‘loop’. One word of caution, they are not all dumbnuts as you imply, I have a great deal of respect for their views, Don Aitkin comes to mind.