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 > Is Garnaut making them uncomfortable enough? > Comments

Is Garnaut making them uncomfortable enough? : Comments

By Christine Milne, published 26/2/2008

We have no time to waste. Professor Ross Garnaut has already made it clear that we need deep cuts fast.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All
I bet that in another 20-40 years people will look back at this hysteria and think how dumb some smart people really are.
Posted by JamesH, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 8:40:02 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
"I bet that in another 20-40 years people will look back at this hysteria and think how dumb some smart people really are."
I never regarded Christine as a smart person....shes a pollie for a start.

"Garnaut began as a conservative economist, but it seems that he is now coming to understand the science..."
Actually I think it shows he just getting caught up in the hysteria and not understanding anything. He is obviously not looking at the "real world" data. Probably just reading abstracts from Playstation climatologists.

"...he hasn’t digested the even greater urgency provided by the latest science."
Huh? The latest science shows global temperatures are dropping. Where is the urgency?

"..450ppm triggering runaway climate change"
Huh? Again rubbish. The earth has previously been at 4000ppm CO2 and not had runaway climate change.

"As the Greens have identified for years...."
God bless those Greens...

"He will be judged, above all, on whether Australia’s emissions keep rising or whether 2008 is the year they peak and finally begin to fall."
What planet does this woman live on? Rudd will be judged mostly on how high interest rates go. He was only voted in to get rid of Workchoices. He will be voted out if he hurts the average man/woman with overzealous responses to climate change. As he should be.
Posted by alzo, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 10:05:31 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
I am a doubter. This is not a religion, not corporate grab for profits at the expense of the earth…nothing more than someone who does not accept the received wisdom as easily as some. It seems that everything that happens is a result of human activity that will cause our doom, and the Greens are the only saviors.
Tall buildings are bad, urban sprawl is bad, mining is bad, forestry is bad, cars are bad, industry is bad, farmers are bad, electricity generated by coal is bad, electricity generated by parrot killing wind farms are bad, the manufacture of silicon for photovoltaic cells is bad, people are bad, animals who aren’t in the right place are bad, ships, trains and trucks are bad, as a doubter I am bad. C’mon, give us a break! What would you have us do to fix the problem I am not sure exists?
Posted by Kiama kid, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 10:34:48 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
Global warming theory always was a mesh mash of the well understood logarithmic absorption curves for certain gases at certain specific wavelengths with a good dose of moral crusaders and left wing politicians thrown in.

To the moralist the attack is on the alleged greed of capitalism, to the left a devise to control markets and move towards a command economy. Exaggeration and hyperbole of non problems is the tools of their trade. Well covered by the term “virtuous corruption" as described by Professor Aynsley Kellow [ABC Encounter 4 Feb].

Now society is beginning to understand the real cost to the economy of carbon tax and so- called carbon trading. A cost far too high and out of proportion to a feel good, non problem based on junk science.

Here is a move the right direction to counteract the false paradigm of global warming.

“The 2008 International Conference on Climate Change is the first major international conference to focus on issues and questions not answered by advocates of the theory of man-made global warming. Hundreds of scientists, economists, and public policy experts from around...”
[http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog]
Posted by anti-green, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 11:12:27 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
'Last year there was record Arctic ice melt,'and yet 'Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966.'http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289
Garnaut would be only making the totally naive uncomfortable! Give us a break from this crap.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 11:44:51 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
I hate to bore everyone again, but unless you address the problem of the third world population explosion, as far as climate change is concerned, you are urinating into the breeze.
Posted by plerdsus, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 12:03:23 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
OK, the cynics have had a good run: They clearly think that all climate science is as political and ignorant as they are. Do you guys really think that pollies willingly took on this mess? Denial is the much easier option and they stuck with it as long as they could get away with it.
For those of you who do not see greenie plots under the bed...
Yes, the science truly is scary. Most of the climate modelling done uses a range of scenarios and model types. Until recently, modelling results that imply fast changes on human timescales (<100 years) were rejected from results as they were not publishable. ie. They were just too extreme and didn't have any backup "proof" that would be demanded if decisions were to be based on these results. (and they would lose too much credibility, not to mention funding)
Turns out that the more radical models were more accurate when it comes to the last 5-10 years of climate. Only the radical models actually predicted ice shelve instability, atmospheric temperature anomolies, salinity extremes, etc that we are seeing today.
What is nasty is that even more radical scenarios now have to be taken seriously (by science: the flat-earthers will go on denying no matter what.) These scenarios are scary, and only the foolish and/or ignorant should deny them.
On a futuristic note...this may be the spur we need to crawl out of our cradle. Having soiled it, we now only have to live with the soiled version long enough to learn to live outside of it. Maybe we needed a Soiled Earth as a stepping stone. (Otherwise we'd never take the step, there's always "more important things down here" right up until the comet hits!)
Posted by Ozandy, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 1:37:40 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
So let me see. The Vatican continues to encourage people to breed
like rabbits and wants to deny them family planning, so thats what
much of the third world does. 80 million a year extra mouths
to feed are the result.

Next in the Middle East, they are building indoor ski slopes,
to attract tourists, all burning oil. Record amounts of planes
are being sold, as people head for their overseas jaunts.

The Greens think we should all peddle away on our bicycles to
save the world.

Other then a feelgood exercise, are they even aware that Australia
hardly matters in this debate?
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 3:04:29 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
My mother used to reckon that motor racing was some bl@@dy idiot, trying to get back to where he started from, before a whole bunch of fools.

So now we have AGW.
A whole bunch of bl@@dy idiots, chasing an absolute fool up a blind alley.

Oh, how I dream of bricking up that alley.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 3:09:29 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
"... show that he hasn’t digested the even greater urgency provided by the latest science.

Last year there was record Arctic ice melt, discovery of a reduction in the oceans’ capacity to absorb our carbon pollution, ..."

Lol...THIS year, the Artic ice has rebounded to even thicker levels, and in some place thicker than it has been for 15 years...but I guess Christine hasn't read that latest science..... (Or that wind has much more to do with the ice than temperature...again, more science Christine apparently hasn't read)

Lets not forget that Garnaut, as an economist, has not put any sort of cost benefit analysis into his early report. Isn't that the question now? Otherwise he is simply parroting the IPCC report, which he admits is charged with being politically influenced and not objective (by no less than the House of Lords).
Posted by Grey, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 3:23:52 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
Christine: "Garnaut is right to say (PDF 634KB) that climate change is so urgent that, if we don’t act by 2020, the game is over."

Actually, if we, Australia, don't do anything by 2020 it will make not a jot of difference. Christine is avoiding the vexed issue that we are largely irrelevant to climate change, it's what China and the US do that counts.

If you want to try to put forward a cogent argument that driving our economy into the ground will encourage China and the US to agree to binding emissions targets, go ahead. I like a good fairytale.

And why aren't the Greens lobbying for a complete halt to immigration, especially refugees? Every time we bring a poor person to Australia their greenhouse gas emissions go up enormously. Better for the planet if they stay poor.

I don't deny man-made global warming, don't get me wrong. But the Greens are more interested in self-righteous flagellation than proposing solutions that have a chance of succeeding
Posted by grn, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 5:03:54 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
I would rather believe the 3,000 or so leading international scientists than the deniers and sceptics that have no logical argument other than they don't feel it is possible for human activity to create climate change. Why would the scientists have any axe to grind ?
Posted by snake, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 5:36:56 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
..."Why would the scientists have any axe to grind ?"

Er - funding, prestige, wanting the approval of their peers, upgrading the status of their science -- is that enough?

Supporting climate change hysteria is a no-loss strategy for the average working scientist - the longer they can keep global warming from being proved false, then the longer they keep their jobs and the more often they get to pontificate on telly.

Ask rather why anyone would want to put their career and funding at risk by bucking the trend: could it be because they have integrity and a conscience?
Posted by Jon J, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 7:28:02 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
In the Executive Summary of his report Prof .Garnaut said “Australia playing its full part in international efforts on climate change can have a positive effect on global outcomes. The direct effects of Australia’s emissions reduction efforts are of secondary importance”. Given that Australia only produces around 0.3 Gt CO2 (out of a world total approaching 30 Gt and currently increasing by one Gt / year) he could have said, more correctly, that the direct effects of our reduction efforts will be negligible.

Garnaut does make about a dozen references to “renewable energy” which is, of course, the code word for “any non CO2 emitting energy generator as long as it is not nuclear”. (I could not find the dreaded N-word anywhere in his 63 page report) He does however indicate that, with our large reserves of exportable high grade uranium, we will be able to help the global CO2 mitigation efforts by selling it other countries – presumably ones that are not as confident as we are about being able to meet all their energy needs with renewables. This could be regarded as our “playing our full part in international efforts” if it was not governed by local petty political considerations which result (e.g.) in our refusal to supply uranium fuel to India to help them cut their CO2 emissions

I hope that that in his further review he may look at the possibilities of thorium which many are coming to regard as the nuclear fuel of the future because it is more plentiful than uranium, non-fissile and potentially enables intrinsically safe reactors to be built which produce far less radio-active waste. Thorium reactors are being actively researched in India, USA, Russia and Europe’s CERN establishment and the developments are being backed by people of the stature of Dr. Hans Blix. Why should Australia be particularly interested in thorium - perhaps because, as Prof. Garnaut may discover, as with uranium, we also happen to have the world’s largest reserves of the element?
Posted by mayrog, Tuesday, 26 February 2008 8:53:38 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
How about this:
Those who deeply and truly believe in the soul of their conscience that human activity is causing the planet to die, get out their abacas and calculate the cost of doing whatever it is they want to do to save our miserable existence on a yearly basis. Calculate this in monetary terms. Then each country pays six months of this into a global research fund and provides the brainpower necessary to really determine irrefutable proof. If they reckon it’s a reality, we go ahead and take the bitter medicine, if they come up with zip, we will have created a precedent where we can work stuff out in a collaborative and sane way. We might even take a look at a few other ideas to improve our lot.
Posted by Kiama kid, Wednesday, 27 February 2008 7:26:10 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
"January 2008 - 4 sources say “globally cooler” in the past 12 months
19 02 2008
January 2008 was an exceptional month for our planet. While January 2007 started out well above normal.
January 2008 capped a 12 month period of global temperature drops on all of the major well respected indicators. I have reported in the past two weeks that HadCRUT, RSS, UAH, and GISS global temperature sets all show sharp drops in the last year.
Here are the 4 major temperature metrics compared top to bottom, with the most recently released at the top:......."
[A long article with graphs]
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/
Posted by anti-green, Wednesday, 27 February 2008 8:52:08 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
anti-green

Don't quote facts. It does not align with the fanciful evolutionary gw dogmas
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 27 February 2008 9:18:01 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
Grn...excellent point about it not making a jot of difference.
http://gustofhotair.blogspot.com/2008/02/australian-version-of-report-was.html
.000043 degrees a year, IF we cripple our economy and throw millions into poverty.

It makes a mockery of the claim that we need to act quickly....which is just more pathetic scaremongering.
Posted by Grey, Wednesday, 27 February 2008 11:24:41 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
Anti-green

Please explain what relevance your "global cooling" graph has to do with the following:

Australians - largest polluters per capita on the planet

Globally, fifty percent of mangrove forests lost

Thousands of shore and sea birds dying

Marine pollution - 200 hundred ocean dead zones devoid of any life

A decline in thirty percent of species since 1970

Land salinity in WA claiming the equivalent of 19 football ovals per day

WA - one of the planet's worst environmental hotspots

Ecological threatened plants, native animals and eco communities in Australia

The Murray River

Twenty six thousand square kilometres of Amazonian forest chopped down in one year

The poisoning of the Greenland Inuits by their staple diet of marine life which is contaminated with heavy metals and dioxins

Etc etc.

All of the above are documented, scientific facts - facts which appear unknown to some posters on this thread.

Is your "global cooling" report suggesting that all is well and that we should continue on with our "Business as usual" mindset?

If not, what is the point you are making, please?
Posted by dickie, Wednesday, 27 February 2008 12:38:23 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
When I went to school, we had to cite our sources, otherwise there was a contention that what we quoted was opinion, not fact.
Posted by Kiama kid, Wednesday, 27 February 2008 1:14:36 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
Perhaps Dickie should pick up the phone and ring her old employer,
the Catholic Church, and ask them why they insist that people
should throw away their birth control pills and condoms and keep
breeding like rabbits in the third world. The Vatican has
alot of answering to do on this one.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 27 February 2008 2:53:23 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
“Please explain what relevance your "global cooling" graph has to do with the following:”

If the continuation of Global warming is shown to be wrong and the earth is about to enter a cooling period; then you will just have to devise another alarmist theory to explain away your horror examples. I would have thought even poor old blind Freddie would understand this.

“Australians - largest polluters per capita on the planet”

I assume you mean CO2 emission per capita. The answer to this is nuclear power. Nuclear power stations can be built in tandem with hydrogen production. Nuclear is cheaper then clean coal, wind and solar etc. A strong case for nuclear can be made out on grounds of health and safety [Switkowski report].

The rest of your posting is unverified and I expect unverifiable. You have failed to provide any experimental evidence for your wild claims.

Just one of your examples,” Twenty six thousand square kilometres of Amazonian forest chopped down in one year.”

Are you claiming this is due to global warming? Or that it is the cause of global warming? Are you claiming that there are no other social and economic factors operating? What if there is no global warming, do you expect the forests to instantly grow back?

Your posting meets the criteria for “virtuous corruption.”
Posted by anti-green, Wednesday, 27 February 2008 4:24:29 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
It sticks out like the ‘proverbials’ that some people don’t know, or want to know, the difference between “climate” and “weather”. This is a shame, particularly since the recalcitrant use this ‘misunderstanding’ to distort and misrepresent climate science.

Put simply, weather is natural variability measured over short time intervals and narrow spatial areas (seasonal and regionally) while climate is weather averaged out over longer time frames (decades) and broader regions (nationally, hemispheres and globally).

Some chaotic factors influence weather directly, like the El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO, roller-coasting between El Niño and its La Niña cousin – the former typically lasting longer than the latter) and volcanic eruptions.

The ENSO is an oceanographic phenomenon extending across the Pacific Ocean from Indonesia to South America. For the last decade Australia has been experiencing the effects of an El Niño (low rainfall) on top of global warming.

For the last few months La Niña has struck with vengeance – rain and more rain as some parts of Oz can attest.

A La Niña event occurs when cooler than normal sea surface temperatures form along the equator. The cooler water temperatures associated with La Niña are caused by an increase in easterly sea surface winds. When the winds increase, cold water from below is forced up, cooling the ocean surface.

Some OLO posters, media shock-jocks and bloggers poo-poo GW because they think their cubby-hole has been experiencing cold and wet lately.

They even think GW means each year has to be warmer than the previous – these people distort the science to fit their beliefs.

They are either ignorant (not in a derogative way) or they are ignorant AND have malicious intent. They certainly don’t understand climate science, linear regression or trend analysis.

Australia experienced its sixth warmest year on record in 2007. Some parts of the country reached the highest average temperatures ever recorded, including the Murray-Darling Basin, South Australia, New South Wales and Victoria. The standout year was 2005, Australia's and the planet’s warmest year on record.

Similarly, some people also confuse chaotic weather (e.g ENSO) with extreme weather events.
Posted by Q&A, Wednesday, 27 February 2008 6:45:07 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
Your posting meets the criteria for “virtuous corruption.” (Anti-green)

Ah yes Anti-green. Who would know more about "virtuous corruption" than the lunar right, the cult which serves your self-interests.

I would much prefer to take advice from the eminent astrophysicist, Professor Weiss who too has had to defend himself from the disgraceful distorted quotes which spill rapidly from the mouths of the likes of you and your buddies.

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/now/

You do have a habit of manipulating the facts. Christine's article predominantly pertains to fossil fuel pollution, the major threat to climate change and our fragile eco systems. You see, Anti-green, the rest of the world has moved on from your global cooling rubbish.

Frankly Anti-green you and your ilk are a bit of a joke. You just keep harping on about nuclear power. In which decade do you anticipate that Australia will have the 25 nuclear reactors recommended by your hero, Switkowski? Mmmmm? 2040 or perhaps 2050 when the planet's cooked? And how will that remediate Australia's ecosystems since other industries are responsible for higher emissions of specific hydrocarbons than the energy industry?

"The rest of your posting is unverified and I expect unverifiable. You have failed to provide any experimental evidence for your wild claims.

"Just one of your examples,” Twenty six thousand square kilometres of Amazonian forest chopped down in one year.” (Anti-green)

What a vicious little poster you are Anti-green and extremely ill-informed. Why didn't you politely request verification rather than accuse me of "wild claims." Unlike you, I do not make claims on this forum which I am unable to substantiate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4561189.stm

http://www.ramsar.org/about/about_mangroves_2.htm

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,19328439-2761,00.html

http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=2145

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15329993/

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:BTx7EF9lcoQJ:home.att.net/~thehessians/birds.html+dead+birds+western+australian+coastline+discovered+2007&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=au&lr=lang_en

http://home.att.net/~thehessians/fishkill.html

Perhaps you will now have the good manners to address my original question:

Is your "global cooling" report suggesting that all is well and that we should continue on with our "Business as usual" mindset? So what part of that sentence do you not understand?
Posted by dickie, Wednesday, 27 February 2008 8:10:35 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
"Put simply, weather is natural variability measured over short time intervals and narrow spatial areas (seasonal and regionally) while climate is weather averaged out over longer time frames (decades) and broader regions (nationally, hemispheres and globally)."

Some people should spend less time looking at "proverbials" or reading propaganda blogs (eg. realclimate.com) and more time reading from a greater variety of sources. All 4 major "global" temperature time series are showing around or less than 0 deg C anomalies. By your definition these are measuring climate ie. spatially and temporally broad. Put SIMPLY the globe has cooled and lost most of the gains from supposed CO2 induced causes. If this is possible while the globe is blanketed in the most CO2 since the age of the dinosaurs what is there to fear.

GLOBAL TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES
RSS MSU -0.08 C Satellite measurements since 1979
UAH MSU -0.05 C Satellite measurements since 1979
HadCRUT3 +0.04 C The "official" measure used by IPCC
GISTEMP +0.12 C The "dodgy" measure run by Hansen himself
Hardly scary numbers here. Nobody (or poor wee beasties - dickie dear) can even feel a 0.1 C temperature difference.

"Australia experienced its sixth warmest year on record in 2007."
Was also the coolest for this century and it does seem to be dropping.
If you look at the satellite measurements, especially for the southern hemisphere, temperatures are definitely declining. Something else driving climate? A much safer bet.

"They certainly don’t understand climate science, linear regression or trend analysis."
Of course if you disagree then you obviously "don't understand" or are "ignorant" possibly even "malicious" or "recalcitrant". Linear regression and trend analyses are after all such complex concepts. As for climate science I don't think anyone fully or even largely understands it.
Posted by alzo, Thursday, 28 February 2008 9:25:47 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 Blefuscudians and the Lilliputians provide as much light as you people on this argument. Is there any common ground on which you both agree? Is there one measure of climate that is equally respected? Or should we be left to contemplate our boiled egg in perpetual fear of opening the wrong end. This is what happens when ideology overtakes science.
Posted by Kiama kid, Thursday, 28 February 2008 9:57:03 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
Dickie,

Firstly, I have no special knowledge or interest in; Amazon rain forests, mangrove forests, land salinity, polychlorinated biphenols, “ocean dead zones”, or fish kills. I would suspect that you too lack expert knowledge in these areas.

I can and do claim professional and hands on experience with some applications of radioactive nuclides in the health field. However, I am retired and not up to-date. Further I recognise this does not make me a walking encyclopaedia on all things nuclear. My experience of life allows me to acknowledge expertise and scholarship in diverse fields; I can also detect the converse.

Let us return to global warming (GW). I was drawing attention to one of many internet articles and blogs that question the GW paradigm.

GW has for many years entered the political arena which allows you and me to have opinions. GW propaganda played a prominent role in the last federal election. Now that the Kruddites are faced with the economic and financial reality of office, I predicted they will go into a vigorous “back pedalling mode” on GW.

Meanwhile I will continue to use as much electrical energy as I can reasonably afford. I will continue to drive my car to the extent of my reasonable requirements. I will do these things as freely as I am able within constrains set by law.
Posted by anti-green, Thursday, 28 February 2008 10:17:07 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
I'm a greenie from way back. But when I say I'm a greenie I am not associating myself with the religious Green Party that operates with the ridiculous premise that nature has been designed as if it were some printed circuit board forcing electrons to follow a certain path, and where the human influence is like unsoldering and replacing a component. Even with such a maladaptive, fixed in place mindset it is quite strange that the Green Party regard CO2 as a very dangerous pollutant. I know that if I happened to be a little or even big plant somewhere I would be lapping up all this extra free carbon dioxide because I would want to grow healthier, bigger, stronger and greeener. I'd be very keen on coal fired power stations too but have little regard for the self centered, ungrateful Christine Milne's of this world.

It is laughable that a warmer like Q and A is keen to point out the difference between what we refer to as “climate” and “weather”. The problem for the warmers with this argument is precisely that they only have a few hundred years worth of historical data, which may or may not have been accurately recorded. They are trying to apply that to climatic behavior that has had its own cyclic changes, unaffected by man, for eons. As a recent example witness the shonky efforts of one Michael Mann who tried to write the "Little Ice Age" which was an effect driven by solar/cosmic changes, right out of the history books.

However, when we take the data for an actual year like 2007 which appears to radically break from the thirty or so year trend by a factor of six times in the opposite direction (i.e. average temp falling 2.4C (jan 2007 to jan 2008) in 12 months), it certainly needs to be considered in context. e.g. The IPCC is the one projecting that we will get that amount of warming in 50 years and saying it will be a catastrophe.
Posted by Keiran, Thursday, 28 February 2008 11:45:39 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
GC theorists appear convinced that if it’s cool, fossil fuel pollution has no impact on human or environmental health – even those trained in “some applications of radioactive nuclides!”

This conviction appears firm, despite the established, scientific consensus formed many many decades ago by medical and environmental toxicologists that fossil fuel emissions are extremely hazardous.

It is curious that the GC theorists have not debated the science of atmospheric SO2 and its relationship to global cooling. Perhaps it is too unpalatable?

“Opposite to greenhouse gases, sulphate aerosol particles are expected to cause climate cooling, but uncertainties exist about source variability and strength.

We analysed an ice core from a European glacier to quantify source strengths of aerosol-borne sulphate over a 200-year period. Sulphate from emissions of SO2 increased by more than an order of magnitude during this century.

This anthropogenic source is responsible for about 80% of total sulphate in the industrial period, and reflects emissions of west European countries. (Blackwell-Synergy)

CO2

"Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year (Gerlach, 1999, 1991).

This estimate includes both subaerial and submarine volcanoes, about in equal amounts. Emissions of CO2 by human activities, including fossil fuel burning, cement production, and gas flaring, amount to about 27 billion tonnes per year (30 billion tons) [ ( Marland, et al., 2006) - The reference gives the amount of released carbon (C), rather than CO2, through 2003.].

Human activities release more than 130 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of more than 8,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 3.3 million tonnes/year)! (Gerlach et. al., 2002)"

“Even with such a maladaptive, fixed in place mindset it is quite strange that the Green Party regard CO2 as a very dangerous pollutant.” (Keiran)

How rude of you, Keiran. Have you endeavoured to understand the basic science of industrial CO2 emissions? This would prevent the egg on your face.

Please buy yourself a manual on environmental toxicology before you continue with your "fairies in the garden" stuff!
Posted by dickie, Thursday, 28 February 2008 1:58:56 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
Dickie don't be rude, even if I was an obnoxious little weed, I would be thankful of all this extra and free CO2 that would allow me to grow healthier, bigger, stronger and greeener.

For your information CO2 is not really anything much of a greenhouse gas for planet earth once it gets the early work done and above 0 degrees Celsius. So far every last scrap of existing scientific evidence confirms overwhelmingly that industrial CO2 release is good for people and enhances the biosphere/environment. If you find any plausible evidence you are welcome to let everyone know.
Posted by Keiran, Thursday, 28 February 2008 4:45:41 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
"So far every last scrap of existing scientific evidence confirms overwhelmingly that industrial CO2 release is good for people and enhances the biosphere/environment." (Keiran)

Keiran. The above is a ridiculous statement and defies simple logic. Seriously, which planet are you on and where are the links confirming this stupefying swill?

Any increase in industrial CO2 results in additional air pollution, therefore: Ind. CO2 = pollution.

All carbon based chemicals, when burnt, convert to CO2. The chemical reactions and the lag times for conversion, I do not know though I recall the conversion of CO to CO2 is around a month, others could be much longer (perhaps years?).

Prior to conversions, the fossil fuel chemicals do their dirty work simply by many containing carcinogenic, teratogenic or mutagenic compounds. These toxic compounds are invading the bodies of humans, animals and ecosystems wreaking havoc wherever the prevailing winds take them. One can't see or hear them and often can't smell them.

The industrial CO2 releases which you claim are "good for people" were once, prior to conversion, amongst the most hazardous chemicals in the world and kill millions around the planet. Benzene alone, is a Category 1 carcinogen and it's spewed out by industry, by the truck loads in Australia and without regulation.

You may continue to be a member of the "Anti-green" brigade who challenge their opponents to supply supporting links and when they do, they then declare they're not interested. These are indeed the desperados, ignorant of the science and selfish to the extreme whilst avariciously clutching their share portfolios.

Author and Stanford scientist of the following link has stated:

'Ultimately, you inhale a greater abundance of deleterious chemicals due to carbon dioxide and the climate change associated with it," he said.

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2008/january9/co-010908.html

http://ptcl.chem.ox.ac.uk/MSDS/teratogens.html

I had hoped Keiran that you would have taken the advice to read up on environmental toxicology before blundering on to make additional ludicrous statements. How long will it now take you to remove the additional egg from your face?
Posted by dickie, Friday, 29 February 2008 9:16:44 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
Dearest Alzo,

Typical of your posts, you snip and snipe like a rabid terrier. What is most disappointing, you twist and distort what is being said to suit your own blinkered beliefs – very banal.

You obviously confuse weather with climate; don’t understand linear regression/trend analysis or ENSO – the focus of my previous post. You certainly did not have anything to say about the latter.

I am well aware of the 2007 – 2008 temperature anomalies, I am also aware that fruit-loops will say GW has stopped because of it – hey, they think global warming means temperatures just keep getting warmer and warmer year to year.

Climate “change” is statistically measured over longer time frames (I said decades, you ‘conveniently’ miss that) than weather. BTW, it is not my definition, ask your local high school science teacher.

Yes, the temperature anomalies show cooling for the past 12 months, but this is not a decadal trend. If it continues for another 5-10 years then yes, we can say there has been a cooling. But you know twat about trend analysis and are too tunnel-visioned to have a cogent and rational discussion with.

“If you look at the satellite measurements, especially for the southern hemisphere, temperatures are definitely declining.”

Hello … Alzo, please try and keep up.

We could talk about relative land mass between NH/SH, we could even talk about albedo – but did you notice in my previous post I talked about ENSO? You ‘conveniently’ missed that too.

Let me be more specific – La Nina and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) appear to be driving the cooling from 2007 into 2008.

You really do have a problem with Real Climate. I am not so averse to climate scientists like you. I even go to sites like Anthony Watts’ (more reasoned than you could ever be) below:

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/28/this-la-nina-likely-to-have-legs/

Mainly though, I keep most up to date with weekly feeds from the AGU:

http://www.agu.org/

Being a member has its advantages, particularly when you get access to all the published papers, not just the abstracts.

Are Keiran's cosmic rays lost?
Posted by Q&A, Friday, 29 February 2008 12:06:00 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
Dickie, it seems you suffer bad breath through eating and burning up carbon based food. Well, should you have an imposed carbon charge then? Also if you are large or suffer obesity perhaps then let's have some additional charges, too. Is this what you are saying?

However, i gather you are pure and when you exhale your CO2 it is not a pollutant but only when some business and technology is concerned does it seriously change. Well you point to two websites.

Let's take the first one where we have a report about some joker that has used his computer model to then make a few vague assertions. We see this sort of stuff nearly every day ... people who inflate information to their own ends and I must say that this joker looks no different. Granted this is a report but will simply be good sucker bait for the unscientific mindset. e.g. There is his presumption at the outset that carbon dioxide causes the temperature changes responsible for global warming which is the give away because this certainly isn't a scientifically established fact. When he follows with ... "This is a cause and effect relationship, not just a correlation," he gets into pseudo-science territory. We don't have much here at all other than garbage-in-garbage-out.

Of course when temperatures go up it will lead to increases in human mortality ..... but not on the same scale obviously as when temperature go down.

It’s also worth remembering that CO2 at 90 ppm/v is when most photosynthesis stops. No photosynthesis, no oxygen, no life. Life, both in diversity and quantity, thrives in a warm wet world with plenty of CO2. Cold and dry with minimum CO2 is not so good.
Posted by Keiran, Saturday, 1 March 2008 4:26:11 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
Keiran I note that your blowhard assertions have again failed to include any links to support your previous rubbish:

Where is the evidence, Keiran?

And:

"There is his presumption at the outset that carbon dioxide causes the temperature changes responsible for global warming which is the give away because this certainly isn't a scientifically established fact."

Here is the basic chemistry for all combustion Keiran:

When anything that contains hydrocarbons is burned, the bonds that bind the hydrogen and carbon atoms together are broken. This releases heat energy, which can then be put to use to power a motor, heat a boiler, cook a meal or whatever.

However, you will need to add to this, all the CO2 that's being produced by every motor vehicle that's being driven, by every furnace that's burning some type of fuel, by every flame that's burning anywhere in the entire world and it adds up to zillions of tonnes of heat from combusted hydrocarbons resulting in CO2.

Probably, if it were not for plants, we all would have suffocated in our own CO2 a long time ago.

Associate Professor of Infectious Diseases and Immunology from Sydney University had this to say in his OLO article on 23/11/05:

"A compound found in diesel exhaust fumes may be the most carcinogenic agent ever analysed, say Japanese researchers (New Scientist, October, 1997). They warn that heavily loaded diesel engines are a major source of the chemical.

"Alarmed by such documented findings, the WHO recently reported its serious concern about the health effects of vehicle pollutants and of the cancer-causing polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons which can coat fine exhaust particles or exist as vapours.

"Diesel exhaust is around 40 times more carcinogenic than cigarette smoke on a weight/volume basis (Gong and Waring, 1998)."

"people who inflate information to their own ends and I must say that this joker looks no different." (Keiran)

That's trash talk, Keiran. Trash talk which has no substance and makes no sense which simply adds to your motor mouth overload.
Posted by dickie, Saturday, 1 March 2008 9:10:34 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
Ah, our prophet of gloom never stops. She is bound to die
from too much worry :)

All these supposed carcinogens everywhere, yet people are
living longer then ever before. A great deal of those
who live to their 90s, land up in homes, losing their minds
from alzheimers.

Best a good old heart attack a bit younger! :)
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 1 March 2008 10:47:41 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
Ah der ya r Yabby I cudnt unnerstand a wurd yo sed yo bein from ranch country an awl.

i jes red back over what i writ thar n i reelize aint nuthin much a hillbilly kin git frum it bout how karbs werk. tiz a hard thang to rite, but leest ye no the names.

an eres dat respee yo bin askin fo:

Drayne Opener
1 Cp Bakin Sodee
1 Cp Salt
1/2 Cp Whyte Vineger
Put in Sodee. Put in Salt. Pour in Vineger
"Run like hell"
Kume bak in 15 min. Pour in 1/2 gal boylin water
Dont wurk? try agin. then kall a plummer.

pee s n no Telin Tales R Gosipin Wach Yer Mouf n Git Yoresef Ta Sundee Meetin n larn mo bout karbs!
Posted by dickie, Sunday, 2 March 2008 12:46:29 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
Dickie, I don't doubt that I may come over as some type of blowhard but I'm just NOBODY. If NOBODY is perfect, then that really makes me perfect. Fine and you keep up your efforts with further wide critical readings.

I find this a very funny statement, Dickie. "Probably, if it were not for plants, we all would have suffocated in our own CO2 a long time ago." Not only illogical but just so disconnected. e.g. Consider that 4 billion or so years ago the atmosphere had something like 20% CO2 and trace amounts of oxygen, but when life discovered the trick of turning water, energy and CO2 in it’s environment, (together with a few trace elements), into complex carbohydates with a spare bit of oxygen, the ratios were pretty quickly reversed to the 20% oxygen and trace amounts of CO2 we see today. Obnoxious little weeds are full of these neat little tricks, Dickie. We are so blessed.

Consider also that in your typical greenhouse, plant growth ceases by mid-morning as the CO2 content of the air has fallen to 150ppm/v or so. Commercial growers combat this by pumping up the level to 1200ppm, not to increase the greenhouse effect but to feed the plants. As long as the plants have those three basic things, water, energy and CO2, and enough of the nutrients they need they will keep growing, and pumping out oxygen.

Everyone knows that when plants decay, or the wind blows, etc or we burn something it will disaggregate all manner of gasses, chemicals and particulates .... some very nasty or unpleasant irritants or even beneficial ones. How we shield, filter, collect, disperse, etc these natural, environmental and human driven disaggregates is important and basically a fact of life itself.
Posted by Keiran, Sunday, 2 March 2008 7:51:12 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
I think everyone is missing the real point here. CO2 is here to stay so let's learn to manage it rather than focussing on un-achievable targets of reduction.

The reality is that as long as we continue to expand and prosper, both as a nation and globally, then we will continue to increase CO2 emissions on a global scale.

Don't get me wrong, I am not throwing in the towl, however I for one enjoy my standard of living and intend to continue do so for quite a while yet. On the other hand I am aware of the situation and I do my bit to try to reduce CO2 wherever possible. BUT- if you think a reduction of 60 to 90% is achievable, while at the same time feeding the needs and wants of China and India then you have rocks in your head.
Posted by rehctub, Sunday, 2 March 2008 11:01:25 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
Ah Dickie, your last post says it all...

You did mention that the buzzards are circling as you get older,
and of course thats when the mind starts to go.

Its ok, we'll excuse that last post as a "Dickie losing her
marbles sometimes" moment :)

Time for your lie down and a nice cup of tea.

Back to the topic. People are living longer then ever, despite
all those evil toxins, so clearly things are not as bad as some
would want us to believe.
Posted by Yabby, Sunday, 2 March 2008 2:53:19 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
Yabby,

I am enjoying the tête-à-tête you are having with Dickie – but don’t be too critical of his rambunctiousness, this article has just landed in my in-box from Geophysical Research Letters of the AGU.

“On the causal link between carbon dioxide and air pollution mortality.”

Mark Z. Jacobson, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA

Abstract

“Greenhouse gases and particle soot have been linked to enhanced sea-level, snowmelt, disease, heat stress, severe weather, and ocean acidification, but the effect of carbon dioxide (CO2) on air pollution mortality has not been examined or quantified. Here, it is shown that increased water vapour and temperatures from higher CO2 separately increase ozone more with higher ozone; thus, global warming may exacerbate ozone the most in already-polluted areas. A high-resolution global-regional model then found that CO2 may increase U.S. annual air pollution deaths by about 1000 (350–1800) and cancers by 20–30 per 1 K rise in CO2-induced temperature. About 40% of the additional deaths may be due to ozone and the rest, to particles, which increase due to CO2-enhanced stability, humidity, and biogenic particle mass. An extrapolation by population could render 21,600 (7400–39,000) excess CO2-caused annual pollution deaths worldwide, more than those from CO2-enhanced storminess.”
Received 22 June 2007; accepted 3 January 2007; published 12 February 2008.

Here is a media blurb about it,

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/229/2?etoc

Don’t write Dickie off just yet … has a lot to contribute methinks.
Posted by Q&A, Sunday, 2 March 2008 3:29:10 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 for posters, Q&A, Yabby, our forum hillbilly and live sheep exporter, relishes high jacking my posts on OLO. Since I’m just a mere slip of girl, he foolishly believes he can “whup” me proper like, with his constant "storking."

This is the hill-da-beast who is out to get me, seeking revenge because I’m sufficiently impertinent to draw attention to the millions of livestock grown for live export and the correlation to rising levels of CO2. Oh boy and that’s when his mood grows uglier than a mud fence – (“speshlly” when he’s been celebrating Groundhog Day!)

Regrettably, head hillbilly Yabba, remains an “ignert” mountain goat who steals paper from public restrooms, sprays weed killer on his lawn to save mowing and believes Dom Perignon is the head of the Mafia.

http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2006/1000448/index.html

Gawd……hey…is that Yabby burnin’ down ere in his pick up truck gittin ‘is overalls in a bunch? “Ouch........help......help..... somebody help….......…aaagh!”

Oh yes…..the topic at hand. I’ve only managed a cursory glance at Garnaut's paper, and remain rather pessimistic about proposed actions to mitigate CO2 occurring in the short term. I am yet to be convinced that the Rudd government will be any different to previous ones (state and federal) whose main intent was and is to suppress the release of important health and environmental information to the public:

http://africa.reuters.com/world/news/usnSYD230970.html

http://www.huliq.com/44227/government-found-interfere-public-health-research

In addition, Professor Ray Kearney’s OLO article (“Fossil Fuels – the new asbestos”) appears to have received scant attention regarding the motor vehicle industry which emits more carbon monoxide p/a than any industry in Australia. This is an area where reform could be implemented in the near future, but will it?:

“The major political parties at federal and state levels, the oil companies and car manufacturers have known that while "leaded" petrol is a health hazard, “unleaded” petrol has even greater toxic properties. The decision was made, it seems, to cut lead so it did not poison the "catalytic converter" and knowingly introduce substances that would increase cancer rates.” (Prof. Kearney)

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3861

The history of the knowledge on A/CO2, revealing a century of inaction!

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm#L_M019
Posted by dickie, Sunday, 2 March 2008 10:34:44 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 am well aware of the 2007 – 2008 temperature anomalies"
I am glad you are so aware oh great omnipresent one. Does it make you uncomfortable that ALL measured global warming can be shed in a very short space of time (just months)? That the ever thickening blanket of CO2 wrapped around the planet seems to have little or no effect on holding in the heat gained over the previous 100 years. Makes the whole notion more than a little absurd, weather or not.

"Climate “change” is statistically measured over longer time frames (I said decades, you ‘conveniently’ miss that) than weather."
Hmmm satellite measurements are from 1979 - 2008....not enough decades for you? Satellite measurements are a little more trustworthy than the ground based variety
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/17/how-not-to-measure-temperature-part-52-another-ufa-sighted-in-arizona/

"La Nina and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) appear to be driving the cooling from 2007 into 2008."
Just like the large El Nino which appeared to be driving the warming around 1998. The warming claimed by the hysterical warmers to be due to CO2.

"I am not so averse to climate scientists like you."
Hehe you mean Playstation climate scientists. Living in their virtual world.

"Probably, if it were not for plants, we all would have suffocated in our own CO2 a long time ago."
Ahhh if it wasn't for plants we would never have been here.

"Don’t write Dickie off just yet … has a lot to contribute methinks."
You think wrong. Ask her about the damaged mesophere? Shes out there.
Poor old girl also seems to think industrial CO2 differs in some way to "natural" CO2. Somehow she disregards her own fetid CO2 she expels with every breath as being bad ie. Ind. CO2 = pollution. Dickie's breath = rancid but ok.
Posted by alzo, Monday, 3 March 2008 10:23:03 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
Q&A asks "Are Keiran's cosmic rays lost?"

I don't have any cosmic rays to lose but I feel you are referring to comments I made some time back about this cosmic-ray and cloud-forcing hypothesis. i.e.
"One feels that there are always plenty of cosmic rays high in the air, but they and the ions that they liberate are in short supply at low altitudes, so that increases or decreases due to changes in solar magnetism have more noticeable consequences lower down and I suspect at lower latitudes too. Further, as we approach what appears to be an extended solar minimum we are seeing this associated with a cloudy and cooler period across the tropics. This lack of warmth in the ocean will eventually transfer to the high latitudes north and south creating changes."

Whilst I haven't been checking up on the cosmic rays recently you will note we are still in this extended solar minimum and we see plenty of clouds about plus much lower temps north and south from the tropics. La Nina, people call it, but I will just say it is active cloud forcing in accordance with changes in the solar plasma field that varies the cosmic-ray flux, and hence low level cloud cover.

Must say that it is fascinating watching the sun in its present phase which seems somewhat unusually long and speculating on its next one or two cycles. It seems a long cycle 23 here will be followed by a very quiet one. But we just don't know, do we?
Posted by Keiran, Monday, 3 March 2008 12:56:54 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
*A new climate-modeling study indicates that as the world warms, CO2 will cause more pollution-related deaths, although other forms of air pollution will continue to kill far more people.*

Q&A, a snip from your article. I think this guy is yet another
scientist, riding the CO2 bandwagon. As a teenager in the 70s,
I spent a couple of years living in the city of Paris. Cars were
bumper to bumper in every street. To escape the fumes one would
duck into a bistro somewhere. It was bleeding obvious to me,
that all was not what healthy living was all about. So I moved
to the country eventually. Fact is, if people live in cities and
choke themselves in fumes, yes it will affect them, whatever the
CO2 levels.

Dickie is free to wear out her googlebar, posting more gloom
and doom reports, believing everything as gospel. When questioned
about some of the claims, of course she has no answers. So its
not unreasonable to point that out.

The thing about this whole debate, if people want to get serious,
start with the population issue. Instead, we have people in the
UN blaming cows and their evil manure, rather then where the real
problem lies, more and more people. The UN simply don't have
the balls to deal with it, toothless tiger as they are.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 3 March 2008 12:57:05 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
Dickie, I know a lot of “Richards” who are tagged “dickie”, hence I thought you were a bloke! Please accept my sincerest apologies.

Pollution is a consequence of human activity and unfortunately … out’ a sight, out’ a mind. For what its worth, hang in there. Thanks for the links.

Live sheep exports? this is out of my league so I would rather defer to those who know more about it than I. Nevertheless, it is interesting to observe the debate and with time I may have a worthy opinion to make, but not here.

However, I do know something about climate science and here I can have a valid opinion. Incidentally, I agree with Alzo (although he does tend to get his knickers in a knot), *climate science* is very complex.

This is why I find it extremely sad and frustrating that people who have no training in (or understanding of) the science say GW is a “crock”. It goes both ways though – the GW alarmists and Doom-Sayers need to lighten up and undergo a reality check.

I doubt you could find any genuine scientist who would deny GW has occurred over the last 250 years. Where you will find *scientific* debate is; how much is due to human activity (AGW), the rate of GW and, what if anything can we do about it.

As I see it, you have extreme fundamentalists on both sides of the so called debate … but they are driven more by political and/or sociological ideology than the science itself. Of course, you will always have those that deny/delay for the sake of the dollar.

Garnaut’s interim report was to be expected. More important will be the Australian Government’s response to the final report.

Dearest Alzo,

“I am glad you are so aware oh great omnipresent one. Does it make you uncomfortable that ALL measured global warming can be shed in a very short space of time (just months)?”

Short answer … No.
Do you really want me to give you a dissertation on the complexities of climate science on OLO?

Cont’d
Posted by Q&A, Monday, 3 March 2008 5:11:53 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
Cont’d,

Alzo, I said Climate change is statistically measured over longer time frames … than weather.
And you reply, "Hmmm satellite measurements are from 1979 to 2008 ... not enough decades for you?"

Please don’t distort or take out of context what I said Alzo. The rapid cooling from 2007 to 2008 is weather; it is not climate change. The cooling is unusual and it is large, but it was not unexpected.

So Alzo, you are interested in Anthony Watts website?
Gee, thanks Q&A for linking me to him.

Hi Keiran

Yeah, you are OLO’s resident ‘cone-head’ – no disrespect, that’s our vernacular for cosmic-ray enthusiasts so I was hoping you would pitch in, and well … thought you were lost.

I am looking forward to the coming of Solar Cycle 24 – she’s late is she not?

What do you make of this?

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/28/sun-blank-again/

As to your "blah, blah and blah …" I still like to call it La Niña.

Seriously, there are many drivers of climate, solar and GCR are but one lot (and what about our dwarf galaxy collision?), GHG-e, volcanoes, M cycles, ENSO (in a big way methinks – but one has to ask … what are driving the ENSO’s?) Yes, complex eh?

Yabby,

You think "this guy is yet another
scientist, riding the CO2 bandwagon."

Maybe, but he does have a point … and he does have a job.

I agree, there is a huge population issue – pun intended.
I think the planet could sustain 9 billion IF the planet lived in a more sustainable way (but that is wishful thinking on my part, as well as the UNFCCC methinks) and probably the point that Garnaut is trying to make.

Like I said to Dickie, it’s not about the science really, it’s about ideology. Sure, “the UN simply doesn’t have the balls” – but guess what, who do you think castrated it? The whole charter needs to be rehashed and both you and I know that isn’t going to happen any time soon with the way the veto (politically/ideologically) system works.
Posted by Q&A, Monday, 3 March 2008 5:25:17 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
*Maybe, but he does have a point … and he does have a job.*

Well maybe he has a job, because he is riding the CO2 bandwagon.
Lets get real here, 1000 lives is neither here nor there, in
the bigger scheme of things. 100'000 Americans a year shoot
each other, still no gun control.

As to the population story, I was watching a documentary on
CNN, IIRC, (could have been BBC) about Nigerian prostitutes
in Denmark. The journalist, keen as she was, went to Nigeria
to try and understand what was going on. She was kind of shocked,
as on her first day there, four women came up to her and offered
to give her their babies.

A google search revealed this website amongst others:

http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/IES/nigeria.html

Clearly these women are being forced to pop out babies, if
they want them or not. It seems, they have little choice.

Until we deal with this kind of thing, its fairly pointless
to be too concerned about CO2 or anything else, as it seems
that nature will sort it all out in the end, the hard way.

Sad but kind of true, IMHO.
Posted by Yabby, Monday, 3 March 2008 10:06:27 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
"Garnaut’s interim report was to be expected."
I'm not so sure that Kevin Rudd would have expected the extreme measures called for in that report to have materialised.

"The rapid cooling from 2007 to 2008 is weather; it is not climate change. The cooling is unusual and it is large, but it was not unexpected."
I'm glad this cooling was not unexpected and I'm sure not much in this world surprises you. Perhaps you could share with us when you expect the next big cooling phase or even the next La Nina. You may call it weather rather than climate all you like but if the globe sheds the warming accumulated over 100 years in a few months why worry? Do we have to wait another 100 years to get back to the same point of warming we were at in 2005? Are you expecting another major cooling phase within 100 years? If Yes back to square 1.

"Maybe, but he does have a point … and he does have a job."
Or does he have point because he has a job...
Posted by alzo, Tuesday, 4 March 2008 11:09:55 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
Christine;
Before you go plunging off and cost us all enormous amounts
of money can you resolve this question;

The effect of CO2 is not linear.
It is logarithmic.
That being so, where are we on the curve ?
Is the part of the curve at 400 ppm almost straight or has it already
rolled over to the point where increased CO2 makes no difference ?

This point is so important that you need to know this before you
suggest any any further action. You may save us $billions and become the
next PM as the present crop would look very silly.
Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 5 March 2008 2:50:53 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
Bazz,

Before you go plunging off and cost us all enormous amounts
of money, can you try and understand the science?

You current level of understanding is telling, you are just plain wrong.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7043#107778

You can obfuscate all you want, but just because you don’t want to believe the science or can not understand it … does not make it not so.

You appear to have difficulty with the science and clearly acknowledge it is complex. To simplify these complexities so that you can understand distorts the science itself and then you use these distortions for your own misguided beliefs.

You would do so much better if you contributed to the debate that is now predominating … ergo, move on.
Posted by Q&A, Wednesday, 5 March 2008 3:10:42 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
A bit of fun for Q&A (... forget that wiki nonsense).

Question ...... Look at this piccie ... is this a La Nina?
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.3.3.2008.gif

&

Answer ...... (hint .... Include reference to Indian Ocean)

Surely if Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history we are not looking at simply a localised La Nina.
Posted by Keiran, Thursday, 6 March 2008 1:28:02 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
"Well maybe he has a job, because he is riding the CO2 bandwagon.
Lets get real here, 1000 lives is neither here nor there, in
the bigger scheme of things. (Yabby)

All eminent major health institutes around the world are warning of the diabolical increase in human mortality and disease world-wide from air pollution (mainly fossil fuel and pesticide emissions.) The Yabby continues to distract the reader from the environmental and human health costs occurring in Australia from industrial pollution - that's CO2 by any other name.

"Pollution Causes 40 Percent Of Deaths Worldwide, Study Finds ScienceDaily (Aug. 14, 2007) — About 40 percent of deaths worldwide are caused by water, air and soil pollution, concludes a Cornell researcher.

"Such environmental degradation, coupled with the growth in world population, are major causes behind the rapid increase in human diseases, which the World Health Organization has recently reported. Both factors contribute to the malnourishment and disease susceptibility of 3.7 billion people, he says.

"The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 3 million people die each year as a result of exposure to air pollution. That number is approximately 5 percent of all deaths every year. In its recent report on environmental health hazards WHO noted that the death toll may actually be as high as 6 million people a year."

And let's not exclude Australia from those equations. In my state alone, many communities (right now) are officially objecting to industrial pollution. These include Kwinana, Kalgoorlie, Esperance, Wagerup, the Kimberleys. Pollutant industries operate in Australia without any national or state regulations for carbon emissions.

The federal governments health profile in 2005 found that the heavily industrialised Kwinana/Rockingham community (ages 0 - 74) had a notably higher mortality rate than Perth and was above the rate for Australia. Major causes for premature mortality were cancers and diseases of the circulatory system.

As is usual with pollutant industry aligned governments, the committee blamed the high mortality on "socio-economic" circumstances:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PM7QA30JEik&mode=related&search=

No-one seriously believes that governments (which feast from the same poisoned tree as the rogue polluters,) will heed Garnaut's interim recommendations, do they?
Posted by dickie, Friday, 7 March 2008 2:05:10 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. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All

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