The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Howard vindicated on Kyoto strategy > Comments

Howard vindicated on Kyoto strategy : Comments

By Alan Oxley, published 31/12/2004

Alan Oxley argues that it is time to look at life after Kyoto.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All
Development of "developed" world has brought us where we are in terms of global warming - therefore there is no point in asking developing world to bear same cost of fixing the problem. That is the main reason why Kyoto is asking more contribution from "developed" world than from "developing" nations. And if Kyoto principles fall apart there will be no "vindication" for Howard, US and others who caused that fall, there will be condemnation for their selfishness, selfcenterdness and shortsightedness. But hey, why should Howard care that some future kids might have problems getting fresh air and clean water?
Posted by Dejan, Friday, 31 December 2004 11:49:50 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
While Oxley's article is clearly focused on the political situation surrounding Kyoto and global warming, his throwaway contention that, "the science used in the UN studies to justify global warming has been steadily unwinding over the last two years" is simply not true. While US business and government interests have endeavoured to publicise the few dissenting voices in the scientific community, the great majority of scientists appear to have had their conviction regarding global warming strengthened in recent years. While much remains unknown about the exact causes, effects, and significance of the phenomenon, those who would stick their heads in the sand and write off any evidence to "natural changes" lack any credibility.
Posted by chris_b, Friday, 31 December 2004 1:11:20 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
How strange - Oxley's article seems to celebrate the fact that nothing is being done to deal with what many people now recognise as perhaps the greatest threat to civilisation since we avoided global nuclear war. Is that what 'rational' means now?
Posted by Peter McMahon, Friday, 31 December 2004 2:36:05 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
Unfortunately the dissenting voices in the scientific community are very numerous, and what many fail to realise is that anthropogenic global warming is a theory, not fact, and that all the predictions so far have failed.

The earth is either cooling or warming, but so far measurements indicate a very slight warming in the troposphere, and that is concluded from the fit of a linear trend to the data. A similar trend could be obtained from random data too.
Posted by Louis Hissink, Friday, 31 December 2004 5:41:18 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
KAEP == Kyoto Alternative Energy Protocol

The Second law of Thermodynamics (2LT) insists that given a closed system in a state of chaos, like a Global Warming scenario in the Biosphere , that system will be renewed upon the addition of sufficient energy.

This is because all closed systems tend to a disordered state by the 2LT and dissipate energy as they do.

It stands to reason then that if you incrementally add energy to that system it restarts its decay to disorder and chaos is denied.

In the case of the Biosphere, defined as that volume of space from the bottom of the oceans to 1 Km below the Earth and up to the stratosphere, if the Sun and the Earth's hot interior continue to input energy into the quasi closed system of the Earth's Biosphere, then Global Warming can not occur.

As for our energy input sources, there is no reason to believe that Geothermal or Solar heat inputs to the Biosphere will diminish in the next 50 to 100 thousand years, based on ice core data. Thus we are in NO danger from greenhouse gases causing global warming.

However, REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE (RCC) due to human population shifts to coastal and riverine catchment areas is an imminent danger.

How does RCC work?
Urbanisation, sewage, stormwater, agriculture and industry all pollute coastal seas and raise the level of disorder in coastal zones. They even create what the UN has referred to as Dead Zones. These human activities also have a secondary effect of drying out landmasses which increases disorder on land to an extent far exceeding the increase of order in our built up cities and agricultural areas.
The net effect is that huge energy currents from the hot tropics and from deserts in lower latitudes flow towards coastal areas instead of gyrating towards the poles as was their destiny. This tends to occur on a region by region basis across the developing world. Hence the term REGIONAL Climate Change or RCC. In low latitudes this new flow pattern takes all remaining moisture out to sea and causes drought. In the tropics, the momentum of these new flow patterns as it strikes land causes hurricanes, typhoons, cyclones and tornados. These new flow patterns also create sea swells which mimic a global rise in sea level.

The extent of damage and disability caused to human habitation by RCC is proprtional to our dumping wastes into the oceans and rivers of each distinct populational area.

The solution is to place, initially, 10,000 1-2 acre Engineered Wetlands (EWs) at all natural collection or focal points within urban stormwater and sewage, agriculture and industry zones in riverine catchments. Most of these EWs should be surrounded by up to 20 acres of space for recreational and wildlife habitat areas.

It is obvious the this strategy keeps water and thus moisture over landmass and at the same time filters all aqueous egress to rivers, coastal oceans and seas. In one simple move we increase order over land and at coastal margins and deny large global energy flows free passage across our cities and towns. This strategy works because of Gravitational Lensing where all water and most air flows are forced by gravity to flow through key focal points on their way to the world's oceans. This is why only 10,000 such EW's in a region like the Gulf of Mexico and surrounding areas could be initially protected from climate change by as few as 10,000 such EWs.

This is not an inexpensive strategy. EWs cost at least $500,000 each as they are structurally designed and built to maximise both air and water movements through them, with minimal maintenance. Natural wetlands are not capable of this and additionally present health hazards to communities nearby.

Finally, to all those pouting over their notional greenhouse gas, Global Warming hobbyhorse let me say this:
Get over it and learn to understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics.The more sustainable alternative energy we use, the less wastes that will flow to oceans and the stronger our civilisation will become because we will be further from a thermodynamic state of disorder. The best way to achieve a global sustainable energy is by converting the current Kyoto Protocol to KAEP - a Kyoto Alternative Energy Protocol.

I will have more to say on KAEP later.
Posted by KAEP, Friday, 31 December 2004 6:46:06 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 never could believe in the simplistic greenhouse theory. I do not deny climate change; in the past the world has been through a number of ice ages followed by warm spells. The story that human activity venting CO-2 into the atmosphere has taken over as the major driving force for climate change is in my lay opinion not proven.

Perhaps the Greenhouse proponents can tell us how much of the atmospheric CO-2 is of human origin and how much is natural i.e. from volcanic eruption, or vented from the ground? Why is CO-2 a more potent “greenhouse” gas then water vapour? How much of the suns energy is reflected back into space by cloud cover? What is the role of variation in the sun’s energy output? What is the role of sunspots? And no doubt many other factors which would be best known to the experts in atmospheric physics.

It also appears that energy released by human activity, be it in industry, transport, or even atom bombs is orders of magnitude less in destructive power then energy released in some natural processes. Currently we are witness to the explosive destructive forces released by earthquakes and the subsequent tsunami. The loss of human life and human misery caused by nature is horrendous. Even in the 2nd world war the destruction was spread over years.

My interpretation of the precautionary principle is as follows; why spend billions and billions of dollars on a doomsday scenario, which may never happen? Why not deal with problems as and when they become defined?

Kyoto may well appeal to the Greens because its application must increase the cost of goods and services. This in turn will make capitalism and free market economies appear to be less efficient and less successful. If the social formulae of the Greens and that of their friends in the Socialist Alliance were to gain prominence, it may well be the end for liberal democracy. Even better for the Green dream, the Bush and Howard hatters would be suitable rewarded.

Long may Kyoto rest in peace?
Posted by anti-green, Friday, 31 December 2004 8:58:31 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
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. All

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