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 > Letter to Kevin Rudd: stop coal plants now > Comments

Letter to Kevin Rudd: stop coal plants now : Comments

By James Hansen, published 3/4/2008

The science is unambiguous: if we burn most of the fossil fuels, releasing the CO2 to the air, we will assuredly destroy much of the fabric of life on the planet.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Next, Liam

From BigMal's link;
Type "John McLean" + "climate change" in a Google search.

Follow the links, check the sources, draw your own conclusions.

BigMal

"why is there a need to engage in fraudulent misrepresentation."
Quite.

"If Al Gore as the oracle of all things AGW then why won't he submit a paper to peer review, as demanded of others who have the opposite POV."

Why doesn't Bob Carter submit a paper on climate change himself (at least Hansen does)?

Gore is a politician/propagandist - these people don't submit scientific papers for peer review.

Unlike Gore, Bob Carter is a scientist/propagandist - he can submit 'climate science' papers for peer review. He won't, because he knows his 'science' won't stand up to scientific critique, it will be debunked.

But, like Gore - he is a good actor.
Posted by Q&A, Friday, 4 April 2008 6:03:50 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
Liam,Next,Q&A

1.Nothing in your responses excuses the BAS for the blatant mis -representation which has occurred over the Wilkins Ice shelf.This is not the first time with this organisation.

2.There are a myriad of other examples where one can validly ask the question: If the science is so unambiguous then why is there need to engage in misrepresentation.?

3.Bob Carter, with or without a peer reviewed paper, is infinitely more credible than Gore, who is making mega bucks out of schemes, the very nature of which prevents him from debating in public for fear of being sued by regulatory bodies for "racketeering".

4.If the IPCC can make use of published papers to determine what ever it likes why cannot others.?

5.The very valuable audit, review and analysis work undertaken by people like John Mclean, Bob Carter and the 400 others who attended the Heartland Confce in NY is part of the checks and balances one also sees in many other disciplines. Why is it less valid in this sphere where there is demonstrably so much hype, misrepresentation, and ambiguity.?
Posted by bigmal, Saturday, 5 April 2008 9:41:11 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
A new term has been coined for the doom scenarios peddled by the likes of Hansen, "climate porn.'
As a concerned and interested citizen attempting to wade through the rhetoric and alarmism sifting for evidence that support the ideas put forward by Hansen is like trying to find a needle in a haystack.

Folks, the debate is clearly not over. We need to keep it open and rational. "Act in haste repent at leisure." I believe that Kevin Rudd should ignore this man. The evidence is ambiguous.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/4830
Posted by KOLLONTAI, Saturday, 5 April 2008 3:39:17 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
Next's comments are spot on. No one disputes the physics of how greenhouse gases work or that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has gone from 280 ppm before the Industrial Revolution to about 380 ppm now. The problem is that the Earth's climate is incredibly complicated, with all sorts of positive and negative feedbacks, so there is no absolute proof either way on the question of whether humans are destabilising the climate. I am not an expert in this field, but when a majority of the people who have devoted their lives to studying atmospheric physics and chemistry say that there is a problem, I am inclined to believe them. We are dumping a large fraction of the carbon that was sequestered over hundreds of millions of years of geological time back in the atmosphere all at once. Do you denialists really think that it is the mark of an intelligent species to do an uncontrolled experiment on your planet's atmosphere? Where is your absolute proof that nothing bad is going to happen?

As for the current government, I don't think the denialists need to worry. Kevin Rudd is expanding coal exports and blowing out the population like never before. Any green initiatives (like joining Kyoto) are simply window dressing. Even if he were serious about them, it is obvious that the environment is no better off if we cut consumption per person in half, then double the population.
Posted by Divergence, Monday, 7 April 2008 2:38:04 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
For the record, there are plenty of "scientists" who do not do their own original research. They simply serve as academics, or perform technical work, medical practice, etc., with an automatic and unquestioning acceptance of the "studies" or research done by others. I have personally known a fair number of professionals in science, medicine, history, etc. who are just intellectually LAZY. They get an academic degree after their name, then proceed to simply parrot the accepted "politically correct" dogma . . . like a bunch of crypto-Marxists blindly parroting the "documentation" of Noam Chomsky without ever checking the veracity of his sources for themselves.
As a previous poster said, "Do your research". By all means, do your research . . . but not just on the side you happen to ideologically favor. Be willing to have your own assumptions questioned, and really CONSIDER opposing evidence.
I do not know James Hansen personally. But as another American, I can say, with absolute conviction, that there are a significant number of his NASA colleagues who would beg to differ with him. His claim that the "science is unambiguous" is, at least at this point in time, manifestly false.
Posted by sonofeire, Monday, 7 April 2008 2:54:14 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
Letters to Rudd should be encouraged from all Australians and foreigners who have important statements to make to help us get it right. Australia, the US, China and India all need to radically change their heavy addiction to coal.

Any new policy announcements from Rudd about coal policy will probably come after the 2020 Summit.

If we can adopt a good mix of the proven strategies to quit coal, then we have a great marketing opportunity for our green technology to 'show how we did it' to the other major coal consumers. As a current major global coal exporter, we need to not only stop coal plants now, but stop coal exports now.

Regrettably, world leaders have proven themselves to be spectacularly unsuccessful, so far, in taking the necessary resolute action on any of the world's acute problems such as poverty, hiv/aids, fair world trade, global justice, human rights and the elimination of weapons of mass destruction.

Increasingly, climate change engineering may be our last hope to save our coral reefs through acidification from CO2, the polar ice caps and the devastating droughts, famines, tropical diseases and destructive weather conditions associated with accelerating gobal warming.

The following blog from the New York Times about climate engineering may be of interest:
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/07/fun-with-mirrors-and-dust-a-climate-fix/
Posted by Quick response, Monday, 7 April 2008 4:22:04 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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