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 > The heroes and villains in the Great Climate Debate > Comments

The heroes and villains in the Great Climate Debate : Comments

By Monika Sarder, published 26/10/2006

'An Inconvenient Truth' is that the climate change debate still needs scientists and engineers.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All
I guess someone from the AIM&M would say all this. Fancy picking on Al Gore for mentioning his son's death - the very thing that alerted him to the value of life ! He was not presenting a scientific paper but trying successfully to make the evidence relevant and accessible. Fortunately no rigid little rules exist on how this is best done. I sense that she resents the fact that it was accesible and successful. Incidentally, the Newcastle student did not file his lawsuit under the influence of Al Gore. She may be surprised to know that a portion of the population did actually have some knowledge of the problems before Al Gore's film reached us. She should also know that Orson Wells (not Welles) was writing fiction pure and simple when he penned War of the Worlds, not trying to tell "a compelling and alarmist story."
Posted by kang, Thursday, 26 October 2006 11:51:17 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
Well, reading through the article I said to myself "I wonder who is funding this writer" - nobody would hold such a jaundiced industry agenda without having some sort of vested interest in the issue. Then I read her credentials. Say no more.
Posted by gecko, Thursday, 26 October 2006 12:00:19 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
jup, Thursday, 26 October 2006 11:27:30 AM
kang, Thursday, 26 October 2006 11:51:17 AM
gecko, Thursday, 26 October 2006 12:00:19 PM

Hmm only 3 out of 8 posts concentrating on a ad hominem attack. Thats pretty good debateing ethics.

Lets see if fyurther posts can argue logically with evidence about any flaws in the substance of her argument, which I though was pretty cogent for the most part.
Posted by d, Thursday, 26 October 2006 12:23:34 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
No doubt recent media focus on global warming has been induced by the combination of unseasonable heat, persistent drought and dwindling water supplies. This month I expect some inland areas of NSW to post record high average maximum temperatures, and possibly record low rainfall. The town of Bathurst, for example, is averaging a staggering 5°C above the long term average maximum, generating weather conditions more like December than October. This graph shows the quite dramatic warming in global mean temperature over the past 10 years http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/reg/cli_chg/g_timeseries.cgi . However, not consistent with the greenhouse global warming theory, in which radiative cooling is inhibited, is that recently in SE Australia we have experienced numerous record low minimum temperatures, while the tropical north has been cooler than normal.

The global weather system is indeed immensely complex, making it difficult to predict the impact of increasing concentrations of so called greenhouse gases. It is therefore more likely that Australia’s recent drought and warmth is due to natural variability, but we cannot discount human influence either. Because of this uncertainty, the importance of a stable and predictable climate and that our reliance on fossil fuels for energy is not sustainable anyway, we should be taking action now as individuals to reduce energy consumption, use renewable energy sources and harvest rainwater. If each household did something, the sum would be all the greater. This is where the government needs to show leadership. Howard has been very slow on the uptake, fooling around emulating his friend Bush, but at last there are signs he is starting to act on renewables. Perhaps because his mate Ziggy Switkowski told him nuclear power will never be economically viable here without a carbon tax. I therefore call upon John Howard to substantially increase subsidies for solar energy (both h/w and grid connected photovoltaic cells). Why not make it 100%, or more, tax deductible? I am sure the up front cost now will pay us back many times more in the future.
Posted by Robg, Thursday, 26 October 2006 12:33:51 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
'"1. A significant majority of the scientific community believe that human-produced carbon dioxide is contributing to global warming."

Politics is about votes, science is about correctness.'

Science is indeed about correctness, ie scientists comparing the theories with observations.

For lay people, who are in no postion (skills or time-wise) to read all the scientific papers and perform their own experiments and analyses, who want to decide which scientists to believe the majority rule is reasonable. Specially if it is an overwhelming majority.

Occasionaly it takes some time for a Copernicus or Darwin to convince their peers but if we took every scientists word as gospel we would be building cold fusion reactors and perpetual motion machines.
Posted by gusi, Thursday, 26 October 2006 12:43:43 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
Before you put you faith in computer models I suggest that you try some
simple modelling. I suggest that you make a start with geoelectrical
sounding. Basically this consists of trying to determine the thicknesses
and resistivities of the soil and rock layers underlying a site. The only
presumption, which is generally reasonable, is that the soil and rock layers
are areally extensive relative to their thickness. You start with apparent
resistivities determined with various spacings of a horizontal array of
electrodes. As the theory and the mathematics are proven you do not have to
worry about that part of it. Given various layer thicknesses and
resistivities the apparent resistivity distribution on the ground surface
can be readily determined. However the reverse does not apply except in the
two layer case. With increasing numbers of layers the problem of
equivalence rears its ugly head. A given distribution of apparent
resistivity on the surface does not give rise to a unique solution in terms
of layer thicknesses and resistivities. This is the problem of equivalence.
I suggest that climate models with numerous parameters, the mathematics of
which relationships are only guessed at, imply problems of equivalence which
are insuperable. Furthermore the body of temperature and other data simply
does not extend long enough in time to calibrate any model that can be
devised.
Posted by browntrout, Thursday, 26 October 2006 1:18:58 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. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. All

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