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 > Testing greenhouse > Comments

Testing greenhouse : Comments

By Mark S. Lawson, published 23/1/2009

Much that is cited in the media indicates that climate is changing, but without telling us anything about what is causing the change.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
fungochumley, despite the feigned association with Nazi sympathies that some climate change deniers make about the term "denialism", its currency has now extended well beyond denial of the truth of the Holocaust. Wikipedia's far from perfect, but here's what it says about this neologism:

<< Denialism is the term used to describe the position of governments, political parties, business groups, interest groups, or individuals who reject propositions on which a scientific or scholarly consensus exists. Such groups and individuals are said to be engaging in denialism when they seek to influence policy processes and outcomes by using rhetorical tactics to give the appearance of argument or legitimate debate, when in actuality there is none.

The term was first used in the sense of 'holocaust denialism', but the usage has broadened to include 'AIDS denialism', 'climate change denialism' and 'evolution denialism'. >>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism

fungochumley: << Take a look in the mirror, CJ, or go back to Baywatch. >>

What was it I said about the lack of civility from some commenters?
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 25 January 2009 10:19:23 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
Mark

A minor quibble, you got his name wrong. It's Keenlyside.

http://www.ifm-geomar.de/~nkeenlyside

Many in the 'deny-n-delay' camp have misunderstood his research.

Thankfully, those that count, don't.

qanda
Posted by Q&A, Sunday, 25 January 2009 10:51:45 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
Mark Lawson – please - not another red herring! We do not require another fatuous article to distract readers from reality - to baffle them with climate science on which you are not qualified to speak.

Whether we’re heading for a warming or an ice age is no longer number one concern for this nation.

Totally new deserts and arid regions are emerging through desertification, whereby normally mostly dry, yet otherwise still productive semi-arid regions are completely drying out and turning to sand.

Behind the human crime of extensive desertification and destruction of nature lurks purely unscrupulous, irresponsible greed.

33% of Australia’s arid zone mammals are already extinct caused by air pollution, mining, overgrazing; plundering native timbers; plundering native habitats, inappropriate farming, poor irrigation management, population growth etc.

Salinity in Australia is catastrophic, costing millions but to no avail. Many of our rivers are “dead.” Mass fish and bird deaths occur on a regular basis, beyond the natural rate – not least from industries which pollute with impunity. Recent tests on marine life show that some fish are now contaminated with nickel and lead up to 6,000 times the recommended safe level.

Nine thousand dead birds in Esperance poisoned by lead. Six and half native animals killed over six weeks by Newcrest’s gas pipeline. Unregulated chemical and hazardous waste emissions have desecrated our biodiversity where Australia has the largest extinction rates in the world.

The quality of drinking water has deteriorated and residents in an increasing number of towns are being supplied with salty tasting water which do not meet key quality guidelines.

High nitrate levels have seen nursing mothers with small babies having to be supplied with free bottled water to prevent the risk of poisoning. The rest of the community can take their chances.

In the meantime, spewing from industrial stacks, without restraint, are chemicals with funny names – polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons etc etc – all carbon based, all oxidizing to CO2. Add particulates with carbon adsorptions, nickel, lead, mercury dioxins, cadmium, VOC'S etc and wow!

Shame on you Mark Lawson, for you too wear the leper’s bell.
Posted by dickie, Sunday, 25 January 2009 3:02:41 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
Mark,
The problem with journo's even one with “a rather sorry BSc” should stick to being objective and be up to date. See "Real Climate.com" new paper on in Nature about rising temperature in the Antarctic temperature rise over the last 50 years etc.

You have clearly written this for a specific audience and as such the slant is misleading. The truth is way more complex than is article gives acknowledgement of.
Scepticism is a double edged sword both positive but when it’s used as a means of denial then it decidedly negative. In this latter role it encourages denial and business as usual.

Common sense and a veritable sea of evidence dictate that AGW is real. Sure in some areas scientists don’t fully agree/understand or even don’t know the mechanics/mechanisms by which some events happen but they DO have more than a passing idea of what will be the consequences.
The collapse of the ice shelves in Antarctica is one such example.

The imminent collapse of the huge Wilks ice shelf is a point in fact (down to 50meters at its narrowest point. A big but hardly catastrophic event except for the environment. It’s not holding significant glaciers back. But if the trend continues with other ice shelves…

Take the la Nina effect scientists currently can’t predict them to the inth degree their intensity or their occurrence far in advance but does that reduce their potential disaster? Should we ignore warnings and continue business as usual and then wring our hands at the ensuing catastrophes?

We aren’t talking about after life or extra terrestrials or some esoteric supernatural event here we’re talking about observable, measurable and to some degree predictable tangible issues. Issues that may reasonably alter life/civilization as we know it on earth and not for the better.

Prudence suggests we stop this endless pointless gamesmanship.
I suggest the article tries to solve the wrong questions.
Posted by examinator, Sunday, 25 January 2009 4:01:03 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
Sceptics and denialists are necessary for a healthy debate, but it seems on this issue their domain is becoming limited to debate and nothing more.

The article itself contributes very little. Will a recommendation to "do nothing for a few years" ever be regarded as a noble and diligent way to tackle any issue?

The decisions we make today lock us into an emissions profile for decades to come. Time is of the essence.

Digging up deposits that took millions of years to form and chucking them into the atmosphere after we've inefficiently extracted their useful energy is a flawed and wasteful approach. This is just common sense. It's really that simple.

Scientists will continue to generate good credible research, sceptics will continue to stoke the debates, and the rest of us will get on with the business of engineering a better energy infrastructure.

If you take a look around, and talk to people coming out of the Universities and the TAFEs, you'll find they are keen to get involved. People in the Clean Energy industry know that it really isn't that hard to find highly-intelligent and highly-skilled people who have decided, or are looking for a way, to dedicate their careers to this sort of work. The political winds are finally blowing in the same direction as well.
Posted by JamieAlly, Monday, 26 January 2009 12:58:57 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
Cheers to Dickie, Examinator and JamieAlly.
Ok, let's play the 'what if' game.
If AGW is a myth, so what?
Does that mean we shouldn't address the increasing problems of pollution?
That we shouldn't worry about deforestation, desertification, decreasing fresh water supplies, ocean dead zones, Peak Oil, over population, world wide poverty?
It seems to me, the principal difference between so called 'lefties' and 'righties' is that the latter are only interested in the welfare of themselves and their immediate families, and to hell with the rest of the world, whereas the former have somewhat broader concerns.
All the 'righties' seem to care about is: "how is addressing these problems going to affect me, personally?" Meaning basically, more taxes, higher prices, bad bad.
I sincerely hope these people and their families get everything they deserve.
Posted by Grim, Monday, 26 January 2009 8:25:02 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. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

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