KAEP

THE ISSUE IS CLIMATE CHANGE - NATURAL/INTERNAL OR HUMAN FACTORS?

I was unaware that it was mandatory to accept that your opinion on global warming was final and beyond reasonable doubt?

I note your indifference to my suggestion that, the burning of billions of kilograms annually of fossil fuels has a devastating effect on all life forms on this planet.

Yet you are frothing away about your own polluted little patch of coastline and espousing your views on the thermodynamics and of the destructive impact of tipping wastewater into the ocean.

I am totally in agreement Kaep, however, I suggest that you get over yourself and look at the big picture rather than that which affects only you. I am also in agreement concerning the negative impacts of uncontrolled population growth.

Your suggestion regarding my concerns on pollution that I "should just drop it" reveals your naivety on just how irresponsible regulators are in this country. I wish to advise that in my region and others:

[Deleted for excessive use of capitals.]

You advise that combustion is necessary, however, again you missed the point. When I referred to an annual emission from one small company of 3,100,000 kilograms of carbon monoxide, I was referring to INCOMPLETE COMBUSTION and the incompetence of EPA's in condoning and encouraging the igonominious status quo.

cont........

Skellett, you're reference to my "constant" use of elipses when, in fact, I used just one in the quote, is exemplary of your general approach.

Dickie,

I think we are in almost complete agreement. No use bashing each other about the ears on misunderstandings.

The only difference is that you are not up to speed on THERMODYNAMICS and especially statistical thermodynamics. They are not easy subjects. I can assure you they ARE the big picture and everything else is secondary. That is just the reality of the laws of physics. The key point being that the HEAT CAPACITY of ocean surfaces is 1000 times that of the atmosphere and thus small changes in colloidals (pollution) in coastal waters creates magnified effects in coastal weather patterns that stretch far inland. We call this climate change and using thermodynamic principles it can be controlled as seen in this hurricane free season in the US.

The only reason the IPCC etc have not cottoned on to the basic physics is because they get so much monety to collect data. Thus they only ever do bottom-up analyses on climate change. This of course leads to their erroneious global warming theory.

I support you fully on the notion that EPAs do not enforce existing regulations, do not cover all pollution aspects and that they lie and cheat on behalf of governments and industry. As I said I have personal experience of this.

Unfortunately for EPA's when coastal ocean pollution regs are finally legislated they wont't be able to cheat because of the instantaneous availability of satellite maps to the general public.

You will have to trust me that when these ocean pollution regs are enforced, the subtle realtionship between oceans and atmosphere will also create cleaner air for us to breathe. And while ocean surfaces are polluted, cleaning up atmospheric pollution will be wasted effort: a bit like mopping a bath tub with the tap running and the plug in.

And one othe important aspect of this is the beneficial effects of increased biological fecundity in cleaner coastal oceans and the intrinsic effect that will have on human populations as well in terms of sustaining beneficial land/sea thermodynamic profiles.

Kaep

I reiterate that you can not clean up your oceans until toxic air and land chemical emissions have been addressed. All Australian states dump hazardous wastewaters into the ocean and much of this is the end result of hazardous waste treatment plants.

When you have a hazardous waste plant with an evaporation pond system, where the vile, contaminated remnants of treatment reside, this waste is often dumped in our oceans. Why? Because when evaporation is poor, particularly in winter, then it is simply dumped in the ocean! You may have suggestions as to an alternative dumping site for hazardous wastewaters!

Dioxin emissions here,greatly exceed the Stockholm Convention guidelines. These are chlorinated, transboundary and carcinogenic in nature and invade the entire food chain. One emission from my region may end up on your dinner plate!

You will be reminded of the magnificent, but dioxin loaded Sydney Harbour or perhaps Botany Bay where there is 10,000 tonnes of leaky hexachlorobenzene and 77,000 tonnes of low level HCB's buried under a carpark. Jerzy Jankowski, a hydrogeologist at UNSW claims that the plume of HCB's is the largest in the southern hemisphere. Departments of Environment have sat on their hands for decades!

Back to Professor Bob where he claims "in 2006 alone a new source - trees - ....................have been identified for methane".

In 2003, the Centre for Transportation Studies at the University of Virginia undertook a review of reforestation.

They discovered that as a result of vehicular increase and the subsequent releases of CO (which elevates methane and ozone), methane was predominant amongst the trees! So Professor, hardly a "new source" to support your argument.

Now I am totally perplexed. One would think that little Johnny would have access to the most eminent scientists in the world,however only last night he advised that nuclear power was part of the solution to global warming and:

"Those who say they are in favour of doing something about global warming, but turn their faces against considering nuclear power are unreal." he said.

Would the real fibbers please stand up?!

Richard,

You used elipses explicitly twice, not once. More deceitfully, you left out the first sentence of the paragraph you quoted without acknowledgement because it did not support your claim. Worse, you completely left out the next paragraph because again it did not support your argument.

Your deceitful mis-use of the report says nothing about me but whole lot about your inability to come to terms with the reality of what the report was trying to say.

No, Skellett. Go back. Count. One elipse in the quote itself. There are more important things to be discussed, but any forthcoming acknowledgment of your error will be accepted gracefully.