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 > Climate change denial > Comments

Climate change denial : Comments

By Clive Hamilton, published 3/5/2007

Most Australians are no longer in a state of denial: they are facing up to the truth about global warming.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. Page 15
  10. 16
  11. 17
  12. 18
  13. 19
  14. 20
  15. All
I find it frustrating that Climate Change is likened to Y2K. The two concepts have virtually nothing in common, except that people warned the world about Y2K and people are warning the world about Climate Change.

In the case of Y2K, IT professionals around the world were urging everyone to prepare. Many many billions were spent globally on mitigation. Was it worth it? We don't know: you don't wait to crash your car before deciding whether insurance is a good idea! Perhaps we all get ripped off by insurance salespeople, and perhaps the world got ripped off by the IT industry in the lead-up to Y2K. We don't know. But I think humans are generally conservative beings and felt it necessary to approach the situation cautiously. I'm glad they did.

Now, a great many very high-level scientists are suggesting that before very long, ecosystems around the world will begin to collapse due to global warming, and will therefore stop supporting human life. So, do we heed the warning and make preparations, knowing that it *might* be a lot of time/money wasted, or do we wing it and just hope the world's best scientists are wrong?

I'm only 25 - if climate change goes unmitigated, I'll still be alive when we start to find out whether the scientists were right. That scares me. Personally, I'd rather see us mitigate the problem and never know. Just like Y2K.
Posted by James Ward, Thursday, 10 May 2007 7:01:07 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
Fester

Point of logic: Those who are reduced to concocting imaginary, fictitious words to abuse their opponents, in a desperate attempt to win an argument, clearly reveals a limited vocabulary. Ranting in "tongues" adds no worthwhile value to a debate!

Alzo, The definition of origin: "The thing from which anything comes." "Beginning." The origins of most A/CO2 are carbon based chemical compounds. When burnt, they convert to CO2. Comprehend?

"Non-sensical," you say? I alluded to the origins - not the source, as you have wrongly presumed. Re-read my post on the 8 May.

Seemingly Alzo you glean all your information from the web. I doubt you are into extensively researching and reading on the effects of anthropogenic pollution and the consequences. You appear stuck with disputing IPCC figures. How tedious!

However, in response to your sarcastic request for information on ionospheric interference by man, I strongly suggest the following "link" where I've outlined a profile of the author whose lifetime endeavours have been motivated by a strong altruistic desire for the betterment of humans.

Rosalie Bertell received her PhD in mathematics in 1966. She has a doctorate in biometrics and has worked in the field of environmental health since 1969.

Among other achievements she has published over eighty academic papers; she has been an expert witness before the United States Congress and in licensing hearings for power plants before the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Internationally she has testified before the Select Committee on Uranium Sources in Australia and in 1980 at the Sizewell Enquiry in Britain in 1984 and also led the Bhopal and Chernobyl Medical Commissions, etc etc.

She now researches low-level radiation as Director of Research of the International Institute of Concern for Public Health in Toronto Canada. She is a member of the Order of Grey Nuns and has worked tirelessly without fiscal reward.

Her works also include "No Immediate Danger - Prognosis for a Radioactive Earth." (1985)

In a critical study on anthropogenic global pollution she writes extensively on man's interference with the ionosphere:

"Planet Earth - The Latest Weapon of War" (2000).

Happy reading!
Posted by dickie, Thursday, 10 May 2007 7:21:41 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
James Ward would have us believe that ecosystems around the world are about to collapse. Bollocks. Ecosystems are not mutually exclusive. They gradually merge into other ecosystems depending on temperature range, rainfall (volume and frequency) height above, or below, sea level, geology and landuse history and practice.

If you want to know what just about any ecosystem will look like with 10% less rain and an extra degree in mean annual temperature, just take a one hour drive to the north west of just about any point on the eastern sea board.

You will discover no ecosystem collapse and nothing even vaguely resembling it. You will find a few more of some species and a few less of others. Some species will have more predators while others will have less. Some plants will not grow as well while some will grow better.

The only ecosystems that are likely to collapse are the artificially wet, overly clogged ones with weeds, that surround our cities, shaped by our continual failure to capture our storm water runoff. Urban Australia might eventually be dragged kicking to capturing their own surplus water and these artificial ecosystems may even revert to their original condition.
Posted by Perseus, Friday, 11 May 2007 11:33:46 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
The usual nonsense, but what can you expect from a journalist writing for the AFR. CO2 has never risen as fast as currently, sunscreen wont protect you from rising temperatures and acidifying oceans (what WAS that BSc in, Mark?!?), and China ISN'T responsible for much of emissions to date (but its a very popular excuse anyway, even on the supposedly left wing ABC).

You didn't post your list of sceptical scientists as promised, hope for your sake its not the 'Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change', organised by prominent smoking-doesn't-cause-cancer campainer Fred Singer and shown to actually be full of dental surgeons LOL http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Leipzig_Declaration_on_Global_Climate_Change
Posted by Liam, Friday, 11 May 2007 11:42:01 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
Perseus - I recommend George Monbiot's book "HEAT", especially pages 6-15 which address ecosystem collapse. It is a well-referenced book, and a compelling read (demonstrates quantitatively how the UK could cut CO2 emissions by 90% by 2030 without destroying their way of life). Actually I recommend it to anyone with an interest in this issue.

And I stick to my point - that the prudent approach, as with Y2K, is to heed the advice of the experts and mitigate urgently. Getting philosophical about it, I think it's a bit like Pascal's Wager. The cost (measured in human lives) of doing nothing now and then finding global warming impacts are as bad as was predicted (whatever the chances are of that actually happening), is essentially an infinite cost, tantamount to mass murder. Meanwhile, the cost of acting and finding that global warming was a non-issue is only monetary, i.e. finite. So which one do you want to risk? A finite cost in dollars or an infinite cost in human souls?
Posted by James Ward, Friday, 11 May 2007 1:01:26 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
My last post an error, refers to Mark Lawsons 'Hot air rises in greenhouse' http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5830.
Posted by Liam, Saturday, 12 May 2007 7:46:59 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. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. Page 15
  10. 16
  11. 17
  12. 18
  13. 19
  14. 20
  15. All

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