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 > Fail to plan, plan to fail: green innovation > Comments

Fail to plan, plan to fail: green innovation : Comments

By Eliza-Jane Stringer, published 5/6/2014

I'm not saying climate policy is a free lunch, but it's a lunch worthwhile to buy.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
All good Eliza-Jane…. Except for one thing:

No mention of population. This has got everything to do with carbon emissions, especially in Australia where our population growth rate is very high, and where neither government looks likely to do anything about it, except perhaps to raise the immigration rate to an even higher level!

Even if we are as about as successful as we could possibly be in developing green technologies and reducing per-capita carbon emissions, we will achieve NOTHING if the population continues to grow at anything like its current rate.

If we manage to reduce per-capita emissions by an amazing 50% and the population doubles, then we will have achieved nothing.

Reducing our population growth rate and heading towards a stable population is surely a fundamental part of any real plan to tackle climate change…. and to achieve a sustainable society.

Australia should be right on top of this particular point. We should be listening to long-standing Labor MP Kelvin Thomson and heeding Julia Gillard’s “a sustainable Australia not a big Australia” comments. What a crying shame it is that Labor can’t see fit to move in this direction. I’m sure they’d win massive support from the ordinary voters out there at the next election if they did.

Reducing population growth is a very easy thing to do in this country. All we need to do is lower immigration to net zero and the rest will take care of itself.

If we don’t do this, then quite frankly we are being entirely disingenuous with all other supposed attempts to tackle climate change.

And of course we should be doing what we can to tackle this issue on the global scale. But we can hardly do that in a non-duplicitous manner until we are seriously tackling it at home.
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 5 June 2014 8:00:27 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
OH..DEAR ANOTHER self-INTOXICATED KNOW EVERYTHING GREENIE
WE CORRECT LIES/SHE COMES BACK LYING SOME MORE
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/02/no-warming-for-18-years-has-convinced-climate-experts-that-co2-is-even-more-dangerous-than-before/
quote..<<>.As our nation's leaders squabble>>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7jdT2rc-6M

if its was indisputable..there would be no debate
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/06/01/more-than-40-of-ushcn-station-data-is-fabricated/
but..ITS JUST CREATIVE ACCOUNTING..and agenda-rule/by fearmongering.
http://rinf.com/alt-news/war-terrorism/war-terrorism-one-fine-scam/
what really peeves me..is the cure is tax us..[great business model]

<<>.Yes, investing in a transition>>
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/jun/1/pentagon-wrestles-with-false-climate-predictions-a/
im not investing im paying for your freelunch as the enron cash grab goes global..[the polution of your aburd commerce..is criminaly treasonous/plus its not working..plus its lies upon lies

<<..on..initial estimates,>>

>>and not nearly as high as the future costs>>

yeah we get that/its \going to cost us more/more/more[for ever more
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/05/enron-2-0-wall-street-wants-manipulate-state-energy-markets-just-like-manipulates-every-market.html

<<..caused by delaying the introduction of carbon reducing policies>>
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/
if only we had listened to wise leaders not ignorant children
and enron-advizers to get a new business model based on doubluing the price of cheap power/to set up scams that give huge users[abusers]..carbon credits..
http://investmentwatchblog.com/the-destroyer-of-fake-recoveries-unintended-consequences/
[its criminal treason/if your getting advantage girly..its insider trading...BUT THE PLAN-MAKER SHOULD BE IN JAIL/

BUT HERE IS WHERE YOUR MASTERS..began their crimes..[enron evidence was in building 7..nice get out of jail free card eh

http://www.awakenyourkids.com/shop.php#!/~/product/category=5653200&id=36978064

here is how the scum[your masters]..lord it over
the ignorant dumbed down..children..[usefull*idiots=u]
http://www.globalresearch.ca/money-laundering-who-is-ukraines-president-petro-poroshenko/5384213

THIS IS HOW..THEY THINK OF YOU..ONCE YA STOP BEING 'CUTE'
[READ stop being..the USEFUL/IDIOT$$]
http://intellihub.com/pentagon-planning-zombie-apocalypse-style-viral-outbreak/
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 5 June 2014 8:38:09 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
Here is an idea Eliza. This will cost serious money so what about starting with the UN? No extravagent life pensions, cut them all in half. This is an emergency so lets cut all the salaries too. That is just the start. Green taxes on Greens so you can pay for your ideas. This is an emergency so you will not mind paying surely?
Posted by JBowyer, Thursday, 5 June 2014 8:51:17 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
Solve the problem. Stop putting band aids on the situation.
Too many people.
Anything else is a waste of time.
As any thinking person knows find the cause and treat that. Not just the symptoms.
Maybe Hanrahan was correct...........
Fail to plan is correct. Certainly with respect to population growth.
Posted by ateday, Thursday, 5 June 2014 8:59:22 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
There's money to be made with green innovation.
Starting with, cheaper than coal thorium.
Thorium power located adjacent, to industrial estates, will provide power, for less than half that of, trimmed of all fat, coal fired power!
Why would we want that, or the fact, there'd be virtually no costly transmission lines to repair and maintain, preferably before they start raging, black Sunday, killer bush fires!
Let's argue against that, there's just too much common sense, and profits! So rack off Eliza-Jane!
During the height of the worst drought in living memory, the only thing thriving in the Murray/Darling was blue green algae.
Some algae are up to 60% oil, and produce virtually ready to use as is, diesel or jet fuel!
They absorb as much as 2.5 times their body-weight Co2 emission; and, under optimized circumstances, double that oil producing Co2 absorption capacity every 24 hours!
Scales of economy, would allow these endlessly sustainable alternative products to be retailed for around 44 cents a litre!
Hell, if we cracked on with that, the oil cartels could be put out of business, and we simply can't have that can we?
I mean, we must keep harming our own economy, by sourcing at least 91% of our oil requirements offshore, at a cost of 26+ billions PA, almost as much as we spend on pensions PA.
And somebody is going to find some blind Freddy reason, not to turn our own biological waste into enough power to power our homes and or cities; and given the 80% energy coefficient of the ceramic fuel cell, for four times less, than the wholesale price of coal-fired electricity!
And who in their right mind, would want energy dependent industry returning to these shores and creating hundreds of thousands of new highly rewarded jobs, when stone age cave dwelling beckons?
Failing that, we could wait until sea levels have risen three metres, (oh goody) and then complain!
Why didn't someone see this coming, and offer an alternate plan that could, [even now,] have avoided just such a scenario!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Thursday, 5 June 2014 10:32:03 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
Eliza, you ask what should be done.

In view of the fact that global warming stopped 17 years ago, despite the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere, should we not look at who is feeding us pseudoscience?There is no science supporting an assertion that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate.

We need a Royal Commission into the origin and sustenance of the AGW fraud, followed by legislation and action to bring the perpetrators to account.

We need immediate publicising of the fact that there is no science to support the proposition that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate. If you know of any such science you did not disclose it in your article, which is based on assumed nonsense.
Posted by Leo Lane, Thursday, 5 June 2014 1:08:01 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
He said the subsidies were wasteful, environmentally damaging and economically regressive because they benefited those who needed them the least.

Mr Gurría also said switching from coal to lower-emissions natural gas for energy was a good 30-to-40-year way-station on the move to zero net emissions from fossil fuels by the end of the century.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/big-fat-tax-best-way-to-reduce-greenhouse-gas-emissions-says-oecd-secretarygeneral-angel-gurria-20140603-39fa9.html#ixzz33jJ29M7y

zero net carbon-*emissions...by the end of the century.

TELL HIM HE CANT STOP VOLCANOS..WHATS NETT EMISSION?

[WILL THE LAW OF SUPPLY AND DEMAND FORCE US
TO BUY OUR LAST FEW BREATHS OF C02 EMMISION..in 3000?
how your kids will envey/us home composying[the biggest manmade cause of methane and co2..YOU GREENIES ARE WORSE THAT COW FARTS.

sure we will double the other green
house gas polutants[like methane leakage from frakking sites..]

anyhow folks ..HOW MUCH AM I BID
for the last lawfull carbon dioxide exhalation[oops sorry polution..carbon polution 'permit?

]WHAT EANS ZERO NET EMMISION[NIGHT EMMISION?]
SOME BANKERS/accountant/mathimatition/lawyers..new global tax sceme WET DREAM?
Posted by one under god, Thursday, 5 June 2014 1:08:54 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
Leaving aside for the moment the sniping from the sidelines, a few fundamental items need to be addressed.

1. Reducing reliance on fossil fuels will be more expensive, at least in the short term and that expense will impact on the poor more than the rich. The further this is put off, the more impact there will be when the change has to happen.

2. Ludwig as always mentions population. Indeed population is an issue and the World as a whole needs to take action to address it. There is a lot of work being done through UN and its agencies, but the World population is still growing. Improving education and the economic choices for women has always been the best way of reducing population growth. Shutting borders to immigrants has not been effective. Reducing Australia’s population growth to nil will, on its own, have a negligible effect on climate change – there must be more.

3. The large energy corporations are investing in alternative energy sources. If they are not investing in your personal favourite this is likely to be less a result of some massive conspiracy and more the result of a failure to see a reliable path to market. How should that be addressed?

4. Whatever Australia does on their own is likely to have minimal impact on climate change. However, if rich countries like Australia are going to shirk leadership, why would poor countries bother to do anything? See also point 1.

5. There is serious money to be made out of innovation. Failure to take appropriate steps in investing will lead to Australia being even more at the mercy of others in the future.
Posted by Agronomist, Thursday, 5 June 2014 1:27:26 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
All good - lets do it. All funding to be raised privately by Greens voters and catastrophic AGW fundamentalists.

We should sue the 'experts' and 'scientists' to pay the state back for stupid waste on green subsidies that had no benefit. Company directors are liable, professional consultatns are liable, why not the frauds and hypocrites of the subsidy-sucking alarmism industry?
Posted by ChrisPer, Thursday, 5 June 2014 2:20:02 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
Leo, you might like to explain why there were wildfires in Norway in January 2014, their winter. You might also like to explain how thermokarst failure had occurred in Alaska, if warmth was not the issue.
Shrubs are starting to grow in permafrost areas, and small shallow lakes form in the appropriate time in the permafrost. Happening because of warming, once again observable.
Professor Lesack assessed temperature increase over many decades in relation to the McKenzie River and found that Spring temperatures had risen by 3.2 degrees C and 5.3 degrees C in Winter.
The Polar regions are said to be the canary in the mine.

Leo, methane a few years ago was bubbling from small ponds, now there are several kilometer strips where methane is voiding in the appropriate season. Please tell us why we should not be concerned Leo. These matters have been observed, empirical evidence for climate change. No computer modelling, no theoretical papers, but observable.

On Q@A on Monday night Lawrence Krauss, a theoretical physicist reaffirmed anthropogenic climate change.
Posted by ant, Thursday, 5 June 2014 7:02:18 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
This is the rubbish with which our disgusting universities are filling innocent young minds.

God help the business community of the future, if such easily conned minds are to lead it.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 5 June 2014 9:22:55 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
Hey Hazza, what gives?

Don’t tell me you are still on this total climate-change-denialist trip!
Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 5 June 2014 10:32:02 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
Here you are again, ant, with no science and full of stupid questions.

You have found another qualified liar, on Q&A, who makes a baseless assertion of human induced global warming.You have found plenty of them, but when are you going to give a reference to science which supports your assertion of the AGW fraud?

Here is what a competent, honest scientist, Robert Carter, says:
"However, our most accurate depiction of atmospheric temperature over the past 25 years comes from satellite measurements rather than from the ground thermometer record. Once the effects of non-greenhouse warming (the El Niño phenomenon in the Pacific, for instance) and cooling (volcanic eruptions) events are discounted, these measurements indicate an absence of significant global warming since 1979 - that is, over the very period that human carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing rapidly. The satellite data signal not only the absence of substantial human-induced warming, by recording similar temperatures in 1980 and 2006, but also provide an empirical test of the greenhouse hypothesis as understood by the public - a test that the hypothesis fails."
://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=ZUVPX02KD1UHZQFIQMGCFFOAVCBQUIV0?xml=/news/2007/04/08/nrclimate08.xml&page=2
Posted by Leo Lane, Thursday, 5 June 2014 11:18:11 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
We just don't need to grow the population to grow the economy!
We just need to attack and remove poverty, wherever we find it.
Without immigration we don't grow; and because of the asinine tax collection methodology, some very simple folks, who are only able to think inside very small circles of ideas, believe the only way we can grow the tax base, is to grow the population!
Why would you do that, when we are shucking jobs, as we innovate and automate.
If we were not lead by asinine ideologues, we would have reformed the tax act eons ago, so that the amount collected, was a percentage of a growing economy, even as population numbers shrink!
China did exactly that!
And we can create just such a model by progressively attacking and removing poverty!
We just don't need a pool of poor, to get people to work for sweet FA!
What we need is a single stand alone and very low expenditure tax, and the cheapest energy in the world.VERY DOABLE!
Those two in combination, will see the high tech manufacturing, beat a path to our door, along with millions of cashed up retirees, and entrepreneurs!
And all of them, adding their expenditure patterns to a massively growing tax pool!
Sure it's hard, but only because our parliaments are filled to the gunwales, with recalcitrant ideologues, only interested in polishing the treasury benches, rather how they can best serve Australia, and Australians.
As for climate change, why don't we wait until the sea levels are up by around 3 metres.
Chances are that'll ruin the deniers, or drown them, and the 30% that's left, will finally be free from the fetters of the deniers, who simply cherry pick their evidence, self evidently, to serve the conformation bias?
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Friday, 6 June 2014 12:14:12 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
Leo, you stated they are "stupid questions" , thats because you are not able to provide answers to the empirical data that lies behind them.
Lawrence Krauss is a physicist; not a climate scientist, and he says the climate scientists have it right in relation to CO2 impacting on climate. There are controlled experiments that can be conducted to show the warming characteristics of CO2. The reference is on another thread.
The origin of CO2 can be identified by scientists (C12, C13, C14).
It doesn't matter a jot what Professor Carter says, the empirical evidence shows warming of the planet is taking place. Lots of papers have been written about how volcanoes are not having any major impact.
The lack of warming since 1998 is a myth; BOM have just indicated that we have had a warm Autumn in Australia. In January 2014, there was a spike in the number of deaths in Australia due to heat stroke; the same has occurred this century in other countries. The trend line of temperatures taken over decades shows an increase in temperature. The same happens when temperature is aggregated over decadal periods. Many temperature records have been broken since 1998.
Leo, firefighters have stated in California that fighting fires was once seasonal, now it is a year long need. What do you suppose is happening?

There have been many significant papers that have been published already in 2014; including the NCA paper (utilizing over 3,000 references) that says climate change is a fact.

Leo, your day is done; there is empirical evidence to support climate change. You may have a belief that it is not happening, but beliefs do not stack up against facts.
Posted by ant, Friday, 6 June 2014 6:58:10 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
Ant I will confine myself to just one rebuttal. California is experiencing it's worst drought in 200 years. Trouble is that man has only been there that long. Will Rogers said "Never ask your barber if you need a haircut", it is the same with firefighters. They just want to double up numbers and have even less to do at even greater cost as they want better conditions. So suprise suprise its a holocaust, we are all going to die!
You blokes want it all ways. When there is a big freeze or floods you chime in "Climate change!". Refer my previous comments. You want it matey you pay for it. Less population in Australia check out the airline schedules.
Posted by JBowyer, Friday, 6 June 2014 8:54:41 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
JBowyer, Australian firefighters are saying much the same thing as their Californian colleagues. When you get away from politicians and politics; there are people out in the community who actually have integrity and describe things as they are.
Not only are there more fires in California; scientists are able to go back further than 200 years to gain a view on the incidence of fires and their ferocity. Even the former Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger has acknowledged that wildfires are now year long events.
In January 2014 (winter) there were a couple of wildfires in Norway which did a lot of damage; caused by the anomalous dry conditions and sparks from power lines. In very early Spring there was an unexpected small wild fire in Alaska.
In April 2014 there were wildfires in Siberia months before the expected time. It has been since the mid 2000s that wildfires have become a major problem in Siberia (noted in the past for permafrost).
Bushfires are just one area of many that provide empirical evidence of anthropogenic climate change.
Posted by ant, Friday, 6 June 2014 2:24:48 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
FOUND SOME ANT POOP?

<<..Bushfires are just one area..of many..>>

NAME THEM

<<...THAT provide empirical..'evidence'..>>

<<..of ant-hropogenic..climate change.>>

ITS ALL JUST CLASSIC ANT SHHH IT...BUT HOW TO EXPLAIN TO IT
mandind hasnt been burnig off like we have done forever[and thus the accumulated 'load'..when it burns BURNS HOTTER AND LONGER[THUS SETTING THE CANNOPIES ON FIRE THEN THEY SPEAD OUT OF CONTROL DOING 'WILD FIRE'

these so called p[roofs are the result of mankind not burning it off
nor clearing the accumulated fuel..but how would a du,b ant be expected to know that sort of common sense

MORE FUEL..HOTTER FIRES..ISNT PROOF OF WARMING..
ant nut...its proof greenies been setting this up for decades.

whinge about burnoffs..not enough gets burnt
hotter fires are the cost..[and still you ant brains build in the forrest

mate what you ants got for brains?
sawdust?....no.. your brains pans filled with c02.
Posted by one under god, Friday, 6 June 2014 2:46:46 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
We are discussing science; one under god, not a political viewpoint. I was responding to a particular point that JBowyer had queried.

It is not possible to give any reasonable response to what I wrote, and so it becomes an ad hominem attack. No problems, it is virtually a home goal you have provided. It gets difficult to maintain a stance when there is objective evidence to show you are wrong. Where are your facts, one under god?
You might like to pull apart the recently published NCA document while you are at it; it is supported by 3,000 references and discusses empirical evidence.
Please indicate how warmth is not a factor in thermokarst failure in Alaska?
Why has there been a necessity for some Alaskan Inuit communities to be moved?
You might like to discuss why Inuit culture has been disrupted in Alaska, Northern Canada and Greenland. Why has hunting/travel become dangerous for the Inuit.
one in god, you might like to discuss why water has been found to be contaminated in Northern Canada.
You might like to write to Professor Lesack who has found very significant increases in temperature over the last 70 years on the McKenzie River( try 5.3 degrees c increase in winter, 3.2 C increase in Spring).
Please inform Lawrence Krauss, a physicist, that he is wrong about CO2 having an impact on climate change. He is not a climate scientist; though being a physicist, he would have knowledge about how CO2 behaves..
Fish are being caught off Greenland that have migrated North through warming waters.
You might like to discuss how methane is being released in Polar regions. What is the cause of that release, one in god?
What comments do you have about tropical/semi tropical diseases moving North and South into what were cooler climes.
The US military is taking climate change into account and forming strategies to deal with the outcomes.
Posted by ant, Friday, 6 June 2014 5:28:33 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
keep throwing the mud on the wal ant nut
YOU OUGHTA KNOW WE ARE SUING YOU LIARS//

its best you double check ya faCTS
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/

35 INCONVIENIENT TRUTh lies FROM MT ALL GORE
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

STOP LOOKING AT YA NAVEL..SEE THE BIGGER PICTURE
EVERYTHING THEY TOLd us is a lie
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/05/enron-2-0-wall-street-wants-manipulate-state-energy-markets-just-like-manipulates-every-market.html

YOUR LITTLE ANTINE MIND..just needs evolve..a little further
once you see from a higher point of vieuw..

nuthin beats seeiNG THE TRUTH AS IT IS
NOT SHADED WITH ROSE COLOURED CLASS NOR green tint.[hint..hint[nor blue nor red..nor raibow neither the vtrufh hurts/there is no other

all truth hurts
but they are mere growing pains..we learn of as we grow up.[we all begin on nthe left/but mostly end up far right..as we see being lorded overe by ignorants/dreaming up fearfilled delusion creates ALL THE CONFUSION.

BE CONFUSED NO LONGER..EAT MEAT[TRUTH]
GET STRONGER]
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/fallacies.html
OR GO THE FULL CURE
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/mclean/agwfallacies.pdf

MAY fear/free..NORMALITY RESUME 4U SHORTLY..
Posted by one under god, Friday, 6 June 2014 6:03:03 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
Ant my point was that firefighters will say support anything that increases their numbers, increases their income and gives them less work to do. All of them, from here to Alaska. OUG is also right the greenies stopped the sensible burning off and now fires go right off.
I am sick of it! It was a hole in the ozone layer (We paid) then Global Warming (We paid) now it is climate change. Let you dunderheads pay up and stop picking my pocket.
Everyone knows you have to say we are under great threat so you have to pay and shut up. I will call stupidity on this issue and I want the bill to be put on the people who believe it.
Posted by JBowyer, Friday, 6 June 2014 6:25:09 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
one under god, you know better than every major scientific body around the planet? I'm really interested to learn how permafrost areas burn if warming hasn't happened, can you explain that? How would you prove that isn't happening in a Court situation?
The references you provided are just blog spots; not much status I'm afraid, compared to the Royal Society paper published much earlier this year or the huge NCA paper published last month with over 3,000 references.
The epidemiological matters I have raised have not emanated from climate scientists, one under god.
What I mentioned about thermokarst failure has been mentioned in newspapers as well as in scientific papers. It is a matter caused by permafrost melting and land becoming unstable, a feature of climate change.
one under god, last week I was reading about how Insurance companies in the US were discussing how to take climate change into account.
A day or so ago the matter was raised here in Australia as well. Do you plan to take Insurance Companies to Court as well?

JBowyer, when the bushfires struck Victoria a few years ago the approach to land clearing did anger me. I think that the view of getting rid of forest litter is seen to be more important now.
But, firefighters are very professional in what they do. So when they say the nature of bushfires is changing due to climate change it behoves us to take them seriously.
I cannot believe that you are implying that the impact of CFCs was just a conspiracy.
Posted by ant, Friday, 6 June 2014 9:12:18 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
A clue, one in god, any group that calls itself an "Institute" is generally a front for a political group. The IPA is a good example of an "Institute" pushing extreme views. They tend to attract people with similar views, which then helps the socialisation of particular views leading to lack of critical analysis.
I for one, believe in facts; beliefs do not stack up against facts.

On Q&A on Monday night, Lawrence Krauss talked about how scientists love to prove their colleagues wrong. Skeptical scientists have not been able to do that in relation to anthropogenic climate change.

one in god, if you can prove that thermokarst failure is not caused by warmth, wildfires are not caused by warming of the tundra in Siberia (April,2014), the Alaskan coastline is not being eroded as there is little ice to protect it, diseases are not beginning to move North and South from tropical and semitropical areas, and other facts that I have mentioned; then I will start to take on a contrarian view. You would need highly referenced, up to date (2014), peer reviewed scientific papers published in a reputable science journal to have me change my mind. Really you have buckley's and none chance, as no such papers exist.
Posted by ant, Saturday, 7 June 2014 9:50:16 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
ant/thats a strong totum[i made treaty with ant-mob]
point being..go measure the c02..comming..from an antnest.

you might.find it\hard to believe/but there are ant eaters out-ther

ant/brain..connotation/implication..<<..I'm really interested to learn..how permafrost areas burn..>>

too easy..get a frakking well
to burst..into..a methane vein/light it-Up..as it rises'to the surface

alternately.-you could spray some petro chemical/on\the tundra
or photo-shop it..you claim..a picture..or just.a redirectION?

<<..if warming hasn't happened,..can you explain that?>>

CAN YOU>?
what/mechanisam..hot..air/no cloud?[explain/any\brain

I KNOW ENOUGH/TO KNOW\THE TAX SEEMS..THE..only-SURE THING
INPUT TEMP UNCHAMNged..[in fact WE WILL SHORTLY/ENTER AN ICE-AGE AFTER THE POLE SHIFTS..AND WE GOT/NO-SOLAR..[AND 18 MONTHS..

OF NO SUN[ITS THEIR PLAN/TO SHUT HUMANITY..DOWN
[THE HAARP..CAN..SET IT OFF ANYTIME/ant/..any-time..THEY CHOSE

SUE ME..ASK ME IN COURT..OOPS SORRY
THATS WHAT WE..GOING TO DO.TO YOU..liars.2.

<<The references..you provided...re just blog spots>>

ONE OF THEM..IS A BRITISH PEER
WHO SUED..AL GORE..WITH 56 LIES;

<<..not much status>>..LOL..<<I'm afraid,>>

HE SCREWED YOUR/ALL*GORE*..
<<..The epidemiological matters..I have raised
have not\*emanated*/from climate scientists,/one under god.>>

NO SHHH IT?

<<.>>What I mentioned..about thermokarst failure..has been mentioned in newspapers..as well as in scientific papers.>>

WHAT I SAID ABOUT POLE SHIFT..WILL HAPPEN
BEFORE THE..100 YEAR GRAND carborn-credit..scam..shuts dowm

YA REALLY THINK..SCIENCE DONT KNOW
THE POLES..GOING TO SHIFT?

<<..It is a matter...caused by permafrost melting>>

BECAUSE MODERN ESKIMOS..LOve their new heateso much they created a hotisland affect....as they got heated underground cities in cannada/bloke..all heated..

so melting snow..go blow it INTO YA MOSE

<<..and land becoming unstable>>
BY PEOPLE..WARMING THEIR HOMES

<<>.,a feature..of climate-change.>>

UEAH/YA FORGOT..POLAR BEARS..'DROWNING'[THEY SWIN HUNDREDS OF KilomETERS/BUT YOUR PALS SAY..THEy..r..DROWNING?

DREAM*ON

<<..Insurance companies..in the US were discussing>>
how to blame/god.ie no payout..'if'..its act..of war//or god..or warming[an ecape clause][/thats proof..0f lie/fear.not pro0f..of warming

0
_
<<..Do you plan..to take Insurance Companies..>>
..what..proof..of\lie..ya got..tape>
writing..voiceprint?

<<.I cannot believe that you are implying..that the impact of CFCs was just a conspiracy.>>

so was..govt/buying tammiflue\*if?the*un..
declared a pandemic/they did\we bought half a billion[us$]....in doses/that expired/..*were indeed never used

[in fact/less flue..that year..than..any other,,year*
[go figure],,treason exposed...sars/swine/bird-flues..all merchandising opportunities/sold\via..a sold-out..media*
http://rss.infowars.com/20140605_Thu_Alex.mp3
http://www.thedailysheeple.com/false-flag-terrorism-to-sustain-americas-humanitarian-agenda_062014
Posted by one under god, Saturday, 7 June 2014 3:12:32 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
Ant no I did not say CFC was a conspiracy, you did. I say it was a total fraud. The Italian scientist was ruined some years after because of other frauds of his. However the Indians and Russians are producing even more CFC's than previously. Where are they ending up? Ah yes no good having a go at them and Dupont have replaced CFC's with more expensive alternatives so every one wins except us punters. You want it buddy, find a way to pay for it and do not pick my pocket.
Posted by JBowyer, Saturday, 7 June 2014 5:55:49 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
What a rant, one under god, I can't understand where you are coming from. You talk about suing those who believe in anthropogenic climate change; yet, cannot answer the pragmatics I asked about.
What do you make of this very up to date article article?

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jun/06/rising-seas-wash-japanese-war-dead-marshall-islands-graves
Posted by ant, Saturday, 7 June 2014 6:21:51 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
http://talkingabouttheweather.wordpress.com/2009/03/21/sea-level-essentially-unchanged-yawn/

DAMM I CUT THE INFO/NOT THE LINK
REGARDLESS..THE LINK EXPLAINS HOW THEY DRAINED THE WATER TABLE/BY DEPLETING WATER WELLS..AND THE TWI O ISLANDS SUNK..other options are damage from atomic bombing in the 70S..has settled some islands..

but your proof/through graphis ..is due to a sunk the island..in other places they are sinking into the mud..but the mud isnt rising..they are sinking

depleted water table..
like venes and mexico..[tower-of//pitxa
oh dear//the sky is falling..the gound is sinking

GOOGLE..the polar bears are drownding
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTs835h827TeKnxJE4Z_Zp17CNvEug6A-2CztMYtTWBEgxbKyrM5lpXHFQ

resting..caught stalking a seal
not drowning..get it..?

pd how come your not quoting from the warming sceptics site
your mates hIghjacked the opposition/name..[SCEPTICS]..cause they begun it..AND HEADED OFF.\.US/THE REAL WARMING/WARNING-SCEPTICS..too clever by half.
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=POLAR+BEAR+DROWNINGs

TRY AROUND SECOND HOUR
http://rss.infowars.com/20140605_Thu_Alex.mp3
Posted by one under god, Saturday, 7 June 2014 6:51:12 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
No need to worry about the Marshall Islands, ant, over the misleading eference to “climate change” in the article about the Japanese graves. A study shows them to be in good shape:
“We have closely examined how reef islands formed over the past 5,000 years in response to past changes in sea level, in a bid to find out how islands might behave in the future. In our most recent study, we show that Jabat Island in the Marshall Islands, central Pacific, was created 5,000 years ago as sea level rose to 1.5m above its present level.
Since that time, sea levels have fallen once more, leaving the island much higher relative to the current sea level. Over the coming century, future sea-level rise will simply reoccupy the levels under which the island formed. This finding is consistent with our case studies in the Great Barrier Reef and the Maldives, which show that islands can form under a range of sea-level conditions including rising, falling, and stable.
Together, these studies show that sea level alone is not the main factor that controls the formation and subsequent change of reef islands. These processes also depend on the surrounding coral reef generating sufficient sand and shingle to build islands.
Changes over the past century

Using comparisons of historical maps, aerial photographs and satellite images, we have been able to test the hypothesis that central Pacific Islands have begun to erode away in response to this sea-level rise.
One example is the reef islands in Funafuti Atoll, Tuvalu, in the central Pacific. Our study found that most of these islands either remained stable in size or grew larger over the past few decades, in spite of rising sea levels.
Another of our studies found that islands in Nadikdik Atoll, Marshall Islands, have been rebuilt over the past century despite being destroyed by a typhoon in 1905. All of this shows that reef islands are able to grow under current climate conditions.”
http://theconversation.com/dynamic-atolls-give-hope-that-pacific-islands-can-defy-sea-rise-25436
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 7 June 2014 10:24:11 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
Leo, sea levels are rising slowly. The important factor is high tides and storm surges. You reference implies that the islands can become uninhabitable. Why would they become uninhabitable, Leo?
How do you account for the bodies being washed away from their burial spots? Your article is theoretical, my example is about what has actually happened.

one under god, I was very amused when you came up with "STOP LOOKING AT YA NAVEL..SEE THE BIGGER PICTURE"

I have come up with a lot of facts, in a number of areas. All you seem to do is come up with conspiracy theories.

I loved this comment; one under god:
"WHAT I SAID ABOUT POLE SHIFT..WILL HAPPEN
BEFORE THE..100 YEAR GRAND carborn-credit..scam..shuts dowm"

Prove it.
Posted by ant, Sunday, 8 June 2014 2:32:39 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
Ant a couple of years ago I did a Google earth trip around some of my old stamping grounds. Just that recently their photos of many atolls was as good as that of suburbia. As this is no longer the case, I can only give my findings from then.

I built a lot of inexpensive jetties for atoll plantations, & a couple of villages in PNG & the Solomons. These were fringing jetties, built where the coral flat was narrow, with a sharp drop off into reasonably deep water, usually from 40 to 80 feet.

This sighting made the things easy & cheap to build, a major requirement for the customers involved. Larger & more extensive construction was beyond their means, & not really required to handle the small 100 to 150Ft copra boats. They could reduce a couple of days ferrying copra by canoes to anchored boats, to just a few hours.

I was not too surprised to see a couple of these were now 20 to 40 meters out to sea from the island. Local villages would have trouble allocating responsibility for maintaining a causeway to the jetty as the island moved along the reef.

I was however a bit surprised to find 3 of them up to 30 meters inland, as the island had engulfed them. It takes a considerable amount of material to fill a few hundred meters by thirty meters by 50+ feet deep to engulf these jetties as the islands move down the prevailing weather patterns.

It indicates just how much debris is generated by the coral growth, & how quickly. It has no trouble maintaining the islands, if it's capacity not damaged by the residents.
Posted by Hasbeen, Sunday, 8 June 2014 7:38:16 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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