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 > Global warming - myth, threat or opportunity > Comments

Global warming - myth, threat or opportunity : Comments

By Walter Starck, published 14/7/2008

The most critical problem we now confront is how to provide enough affordable fuel to avoid severe recession before alternative energy can become reality.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All
MY INTERNET refuses connectionto any other site
BUT this?
so i say global warming is a LIE
we have free energy
HERE NOW
yet govt WANTS a TAX
why?try this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykGZ2tRY4kY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-ulOvJl46U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DqBWk9YRu7c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czZ9kn70Y7I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zu8LaVH-pn0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6YYUOx6fBU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxZR4C9gqOY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FgrDdJotz0A
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AU8PId_6xec
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8stApCmxYEM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHh5AqQ4_xw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-Lnhs7caCo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-O7WNvKSvY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IrMcBHGMZzc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCjM-ZOqQF0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HTr3ZgKwsiU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXv6sO52xFY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAiTv0IpHWo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0FhADUZjx4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLev-ijMLME

as to how try this as to why they are being kept from our kids

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21D3ATgMHuE
http://www.youtube.com/watchv=zp_XHfylwPU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4RZqQujqDQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YnnTzyidNI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGhPgEDcKXI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v76amxA9x1cA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6uTy9Uq0K0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSBxEZoNfQo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq_APNsERXY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HLqw59XfG04
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZRLR7-jdF3M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=14yDP0GKrUA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muQRIUVd6Aw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Kp24ZeHtv4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_MHVw1Zz-I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLzUNDaF00U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9MQ88NEO7Q

well
we could nationalise 'big oil [and big pharma
to free up our childrens minds
[then join the suppressed research to gether [AND HEAL THE WORLD}

but we wont [cause we cant]
because we arnt allowed to see the big picture
[because of privatised proffit's]

we are spending billions subsidising these multinationals with our taxes [every week ]

billions spent pills and potions that dont cure us
clearly big BUISNESS lobby is paid to stay on top of this info
to ridicule it where they can
or suppress it where they cant

but for the alternative of [free] energy
that is based on science

that your regular scientists are forbidden to explore
that of which you speak is thus unspeakable
so

[why are they controlled and owned by the same cartel's"]

[and are making us sicker ,by treating the symptom
[BUT NEVER actually even allowed to cure THE DISEASE]
why
because they have an active lobby
have bought out govt
that is called TREASON
Posted by one under god, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 9:39:30 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
Strewth! Years ago I taught this myopic style of reasoning to sell products only then we called the “Reduction to the ridiculous technique” (Answer each point in isolation, ignore the ‘Big Picture”) followed by “YOU might miss out threat technique” (if it’s wrong YOU’ll miss out on something).

Fundamentalist “intelligent design” (sic) theorist use this same methods of pedantic fact by fact arguing while ignoring the linkages between disparate facts.

The problem isn’t ‘global warming’ as understood by the public aided and abetted by self interested or opportunistic “nay sayers”. Warming, cooling who cares what is important that the environment that supports us is being polluted to the point of being no longer able to recover. Evidence is both apparent and from multi- disciplined Science (Agriculture to Zoology). It therefore stands to reason that any solution should be also multi-focused THERE IS NO magic Bullet.

Comparisons with Y2K are spurious as it was a single discipline issue failure.

The much overlooked issue is that our civilization is based on petrochemicals products and by-products. Petrochemicals (oil) supplies us with plastics, fabrics, tyres, flavourings, dyes, pharmaceuticals in fact almost every thing we associate with modern living. Common sense there dictates we seek other forms of fuel and cut emissions but the others?

The author’s “…drastic cuts in carbon emissions to prevent global-warming is to climate what anorexia is to obesity” is colourful but hardly accurate. His assumptions are predicated on the belief that current ways are the only ways. This issue proves that our current ways (version of Capitalism?) are dysfunctional.

To even consider profit and galloping intellectual inertia as more acceptable than potentially human survival is bizarre at best. It reminds me of the man who fell from the Empire State building. He was heard saying as passed each floor “So far so good. Where’s the problem?”

To me it comes down to really want to be the most spectacular among the other fossil record? Like the Indian Chief said in essence “When all the food is gone try eating your money”
Posted by examinator, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 12:25:46 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 authors updated their earlier work to show that the oceans were not in fact cooling - this was a spurious result caused by two uncontrolled biases in the Argo instruments. To cite:

Correction to “Recent Cooling 1 of the Upper Ocean”

Josh K. Willis, John M. Lyman,3, Gregory C. Johnson and John Gilson

Two systematic biases have been discovered 9 in the ocean temperature data used by Lyman et al. [2006]. These biases are both substantially larger than sampling errors estimated in Lyman et al. [2006], and appear to be the cause of the rapid cooling reported in that work.

Most of the rapid decrease in globally integrated 18 upper (0–750 m) ocean heat content anomalies (OHCA) between 2003 and 2005 reported by Lyman et al. [2006] appears to be an artifact resulting from the combination of two different instrument biases recently discovered in the in situ profile data. Although Lyman et al. [2006] carefully estimated sampling errors, they did not investigate potential biases among different instrument types. One such bias has been identified in a subset of Argo float profiles. This error will ultimately be corrected. However, until corrections have been made these data can be easily excluded from OHCA estimates (see http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/ for more details). Another bias was caused by eXpendable BathyThermograph (XBT) data that are systematically warm compared to other instruments [Gouretski and Koltermann, 2007]. Both biases appear to have contributed equally to the spurious cooling.

Or in more layman's terms:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/01/ocean-cooling-and-global-warming/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/06/ocean-heat-content-revisions/
Posted by Barry Brook, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 2:12:30 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
Barry,

Maybe Don Aitken should be made aware of this as he mentions the Argo research in his article

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=7639&page=0

I don't like people of his stature misrepresenting the science.
Posted by Q&A, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 2:49:30 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
So it's all just a big conspiratorial scam to raise more taxes?

Considering that it's the politicians who actually implement these measures that are going to take any hit at the ballot box and mainly future ones - years from now - who will reap any huge taxation benefits, I don't think that argument makes much sense, especially when entire governments could change in that period.

What politicians tend to do is to create some sort of menace, amplify and distort it and then bravely step in to save us all in the hope of winning more votes at the next election.

The can't do that here because any perceived benefits would take years to become known.

Maybe - just maybe - the scientists are telling the truth.
Posted by wobbles, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 3:47:47 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
"Being energy independent would be a huge competitive advantage in a time of high energy costs and shortages everywhere else." Not at all - the competitive price for the fuel would be what it gets on the world market. Competitive advantage derives from being able to offer the buyer a more attractive deal than your competitors while getting at least as high a return on your investment and inputs as you could in their best alternative use, it's not affected by being "energy independent."
Posted by Faustino, Tuesday, 15 July 2008 5:52:33 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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