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 > Abbott changing the rules at half time on Renewable Energy Target > Comments

Abbott changing the rules at half time on Renewable Energy Target : Comments

By Guy Ragen, published 2/10/2014

The renewable energy target is now being targeted by the Government precisely because it is working so well to reduce pollution.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Leo, you can’t make a call either way, and the tabloids are a very poor research tool. The problems with us, is that any slight change in anyway what so ever, will be catastrophic to all our dealings as a species given how fragile we humans are compared with other more hardy/robust life forms.

You would agree the earth is just one giant chemical recycling factory and all research points to life on earth will continue, but not in favour of us. Humans are a vertically larger creatures living on the surface of earth, with cities, farmland, etc. The facts on this subject are very real in relation to future economics and that critical stabilizations that we need in order to function, are now under threat by us speeding up the processes we know little about.


According to IPCC (2011) estimates of annual losses have ranged since 1980 from a few billion to above US$200 billion (in 2010 dollars), with the highest value for 2005 (the year of Hurricane Katrina). The global weather-related disaster losses reported over the last few decades reflect mainly monetized direct damages to assets, and are unequally distributed. Loss estimates are lower bound estimates because many impacts, such as loss of human lives, cultural heritage, and ecosystem services, are difficult to value and monetize, and thus they are poorly reflected in estimates of losses. Heat waves are periods of abnormally high temperatures and heat index.

Definitions of a heatwave vary because of the variation of temperatures in different geographic locations. Excessive heat is often accompanied by high levels of humidity, but can also be catastrophically dry. These variations have only come about quite recently and the rapidness of the anomaly can only point to us.

Continued
Posted by Tally, Monday, 6 October 2014 2:53:26 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
Because heatwaves are not visible as other forms of severe weather are, like hurricanes, tornadoes, and thunderstorms, they are one of the less known forms of extreme weather. Severe heat weather can damage populations and crops due to potential dehydration or hyperthermia, heat cramps, heat expansion and heat stroke.

Dried soils are more susceptible to erosion, decreasing lands available for agriculture. Outbreaks of wildfires can increase in frequency as dry vegetation has increased likeliness of igniting. The evaporation of bodies of water can be devastating to marine populations, decreasing the size of the habitats available as well as the amount of nutrition presented within the waters. Livestock and other animal populations may decline as well
Leo, calling people lairs effects your Intelligentsia.

Please try to come up with some that backs your denial.


http://tinyurl.com/ohxa9jb

Tally
Posted by Tally, Monday, 6 October 2014 2:54:31 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 am I supposed to be denying, Tally, I simply point out that there is no science to justify the assertion of a human caused effect on climate.
Until you produce science which shows any measurable effect of human emissions on climate, there is nothing to deny.

Are the nonsense videos, to which you link, meant to prove anything?
Posted by Leo Lane, Tuesday, 7 October 2014 12:20:38 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
Regarding Leo Lane's comment about "no science to justify the assertion of a human caused effect on climate" - well, I wonder why I am even wasting my time bothering to comment on that!

Is "Tally" supposed to produce, in a comment, the scientific results of the research of thousand of climate and meteorological research agencies across the globe?

Not only am I willing to take the opinion of 99% of the world's climate scientists, that global warming is happening and is caused by the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

But even to humble moi, with my relatively modest knowledge of science, the explanation of anthropogenic global warming makes complete sense.

Empirically it is clear that the planet IS warming. Even if human causes were only a possibility, it would surely be prudent to reduce greenhouse emissions. Waiting for 100% certainty before acting might be a recipe for global calamity, for the next and future generations.
Posted by ChristinaMac1, Tuesday, 7 October 2014 3:22:35 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
ChristinaMac, there is no science to show that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate..
Professor Bob Carter gives a brilliant overview:
“ the key question concerns the magnitude of warming caused by the rather small 7 billion tonnes of industrial carbon dioxide that enter the atmosphere each year, compared with the natural flows from land and sea of over 200 billion tonnes.
Despite well over twenty years of study by thousands of scientists, and the expenditure of more than $100 billion in research money, an accurate quantitative answer to this question remains unknown., the scientific evidence now overwhelmingly indicates that any human warming effect is deeply submerged within planet Earth's natural variations of temperature.
Importantly, no global warming has now occurred since 1997, despite an increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide of 8%, which in turn represents 34% of all the extra human-related carbon dioxide contributed since the industrial revolution.
Few of these facts are new, yet until recently the public have been relentlessly misinformed that human-caused global warming was causing polar bears to die out, more and more intense storms, droughts and floods to occur, the monsoons to fail, sea-level rise to accelerate, ice to melt at unnatural rates, that late 20th century temperature was warmer than ever before and that speculative computer models could predict the temperature accurately one hundred years into the future.
It now turns out that not one of these assertions is true. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/report-gives-the-truth-about-climate-at-last/story-fni0cwl5-1226720428390
It is helpful to have an honest scientist , who tells the truth
Posted by Leo Lane, Tuesday, 7 October 2014 11:55:54 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 Lane is right about one thing - that's for sure. The public have been relentlessly misinformed by the Murdoch media, by the massive lobbying and publicity machines of the Koch brothers and their likes - yes, relentlessly misinformed in the interests of the fossil fuel industries - to swallow garbage like the article Leo Lane recommends.
Posted by ChristinaMac1, Wednesday, 8 October 2014 6:59:43 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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