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 > Giving up on climate change? > Comments

Giving up on climate change? : Comments

By Mike Pope, published 14/1/2009

The Rudd proposals on climate change will fail to achieve a meaningful reduction in carbon emissions.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. All
Dickie
Invective and abuse is certainly your forte. Did you get a doctorate in this?
Like the spoilt child, you stamp your foot and will not address an argument but then the Green nazis are always right and you and some of the other posters think people should be allowed to starve and die out. Well you lot can lead that charge! I know us humans will all get along nicely thank you and you and your miserable friends can all go and have a good cry together.
Cheers pip pip lol
Posted by JBowyer, Sunday, 18 January 2009 9:49:53 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
No, dickie, I didn’t think you could. Strange that you consider it a “handmaiden’s” responsibility to back up your claims with evidence, yet demand so much of everyone else.

You say that the IUCN “has estimated that the current species extinction rate is between 1,000 and 10,000 times higher than it would naturally be so do your own sums.” Well, to take the role of your handmaiden, using their World Conference Union figure of approximately 1.6 recorded extinctions per year since 1500, my sums using their figures give a “natural” rate of extinction of about 0.0016 to 0.00016 per year, which is 0.08 to 0.8 (not even one) “natural” extinction in 500 years. 1000 to 10 000 times that gives 0.16 to 1.6 per year (about 0.016% of your LOWER figure). You can see why I might question the estimates provided, given the basis of these is the not yet "catalogued" data you refer to.

You also mention the Red List. It is surprising that so few, if any, of the species on their previous lists are now extinct in 2008 given the rates you provide. This clearly suggests that either:

- the 10000 to 100000 species per year is grossly exaggerated, as the Red List, according to the IUCN itself, consists of the MOST THREATENED species, where one would expect such huge losses to be significantly represented; or

- the IUCN is focusing on the wrong species, overlooking the many thousands that were obviously more threatened and becoming extinct every year.

I would ask you to resolve this glaring paradox, but there is little point debating with you further. If these arguments aren’t sufficient for you to even question the figures (in my world, the sky is blue), I am fighting the unwinnable fight against unreason. Your post is a dazzling display of smoke, mirrors and ad hominem, devoid of substance. So I’ll leave you to it.

And, btw, a direct link to a blog is not evidence, and “palaeontolgy” (spelling?) is the study of life in earlier geological epochs.
Posted by fungochumley, Sunday, 18 January 2009 11:32:54 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
"And, btw, a direct link to a blog is not evidence, and “palaeontolgy” (spelling?) is the study of life in earlier geological epochs."

Is that right Fungo?:

"Palaeontology is one of the two journals of the Palaeontological Association. It has been published yearly since 1957. (The Palaeontological Association Reg. Charity No. 276369)"

http://www.palass.org/

Errr...what was that about the spelling Fungo? And then you say:

"the IUCN is focusing on the wrong species, overlooking the many thousands that were obviously more threatened and becoming extinct every year."

Errrr...why would they be the "wrong species" Fungo? And where is the data you rant about on extinctions? Since you can't provide any, I must presume there isn't any which makes your pattern of argument extremely weak.

The IUCN website advises:

“In the future we will expand the scope of our species knowledge to include a far broader range of groups, thus informing and assisting policy makers in a hugely more objective and representative manner.

'In the future the SRLI will sample other lesser-known groups such as beetles, molluscs, mushrooms, lichens and plant species like mosses and liverworts, and flowering plants. Over the coming years this new approach, which could be considered the Dow Jones Index for biodiversity, will enable us to build a clearer picture of the status of all the world’s species, not just the furry and feathered.'

Current estimates of the total number of species on Earth range from 5 to 30 million, of which, the 2005 Millennium Ecosystem Assessment notes approximately 2 million have been formally described.

The IUCN is currently managing data on a mere 45,000 species.

Why not take a cold shower and remove your foot from your mouth Fungo?
Posted by dickie, Monday, 19 January 2009 3:31:19 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
Palaeontology has three 'o's in it, dickie. Perhaps that's challenging enough for you today.
What are your academic qualifications exactly?

Yeah, yeah, take a shower, get my hand off it, take my foot out, yada yada yada...
Posted by fungochumley, Monday, 19 January 2009 4:36:49 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
Green House Gas Emissions Permits increase the price of emissions producing energy so making cleaner sources of energy price competitive so encouraging investment in renewable energy sources.

We can achieve the same result of making clean sources of energy price competitive by removing finance costs on renewable energy.

The financial costs (profits, taxes, repayments and interest) make up most of the cost of generating clean energy. By giving people zero interest loans that must be invested in renewable energy sources or in other ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and paying the loans back from taxes on the investments we immediately make renewable energy cheaper than burning fossil fuels. (We have eliminated all finance costs except profit and taxes)

Where do the loans come from? Stop banks producing new money by lending money they do not have (fractional reserve banking) and let the government create the needed new money by creating loans. Give the loans to the population who are frugal in their use of energy. Require the loans to be invested through a market place in ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

By making $20 billion available as new loans each year we can have zero emissions within 10 years. We will also have low cost energy and a booming economy.

We have designed a market place to enable this to happen and we are about to start to build it. Contact me if you would like to be kept informed or be part of the project by sending an email to cscoxk@gmail.com
Posted by Fickle Pickle, Tuesday, 20 January 2009 6:01:38 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. Page 6
  8. All

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