Sign InThe Forum > Article Comments > Under the gun > Comments
Under the gun : Comments
By Julian Cribb, published 9/6/2009While we continue to dawdle on greenhouse mitigation policy we seem blithely unaware there is a gun pointed at our heads. The clathrate gun.
- Pages:
- ‹
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- Page 5
- ›
- All
Posted by Ozandy, Thursday, 11 June 2009 10:18:38 AM
| |
Ozandy
I rarely read any of runner's posts. I value my well-being too much. However, I do take your point that the big 3 Middle Eastern religions are failing to take a strong stand on protecting the environment. nor do they do much about animal welfare. All of which stems from their 'human-centric' religious foundation. Which doesn't surprise me. What does concern me is the self-interest that appears to be the reason for apparently intelligent people arguing against sustainable, clean practices. No one has yet provided any argument in favour of business-as-usual. Posted by Fractelle, Thursday, 11 June 2009 10:31:44 AM
| |
Hi Fractelle - Don't you love it when our resident denialist continues to truncate the temperature records from the Hadley site and fails to provide the combined global land and sea temperature anomalies (Degrees C). Why does he do that? Here they are for 130 years, free from any manipulation of figures too. Cheers
1880 -0.1467 1881 -0.0896 1882 -0.1182 1883 -0.1607 1884 -0.2056 1885 -0.1720 1886 -0.1456 1887 -0.2147 1888 -0.1424 1889 -0.1012 1890 -0.2468 1891 -0.1992 1892 -0.2631 1893 -0.2878 1894 -0.2482 1895 -0.1747 1896 -0.0578 1897 -0.0925 1898 -0.1997 1899 -0.0967 1900 -0.0282 1901 -0.0975 1902 -0.1736 1903 -0.2930 1904 -0.3286 1905 -0.2160 1906 -0.1799 1907 -0.3468 1908 -0.3769 1909 -0.3806 1910 -0.3657 1911 -0.3622 1912 -0.3038 1913 -0.2861 1914 -0.1134 1915 -0.0559 1916 -0.2710 1917 -0.3265 1918 -0.2099 1919 -0.2072 1920 -0.1675 1921 -0.1226 1922 -0.2144 1923 -0.1906 1924 -0.1850 1925 -0.1145 1926 -0.0214 1927 -0.0994 1928 -0.0980 1929 -0.2246 1930 -0.0252 1931 -0.0036 1932 -0.0271 1933 -0.1606 1934 -0.0243 1935 -0.0497 1936 -0.0179 1937 0.0827 1938 0.0979 1939 0.0748 1940 0.1162 1941 0.1378 1942 0.1240 1943 0.1177 1944 0.2132 1945 0.0665 1946 -0.0289 1947 -0.0305 1948 -0.0415 1949 -0.0682 1950 -0.1556 1951 -0.0119 1952 0.0337 1953 0.1128 1954 -0.1117 1955 -0.1315 1956 -0.1879 1957 0.0488 1958 0.0992 1959 0.0528 1960 0.0047 1961 0.0744 1962 0.0977 1963 0.1271 1964 -0.1401 1965 -0.0734 1966 -0.0299 1967 -0.0143 1968 -0.0213 1969 0.0785 1970 0.0322 1971 -0.0645 1972 0.0177 1973 0.1428 1974 -0.1048 1975 -0.0320 1976 -0.1108 1977 0.1281 1978 0.0502 1979 0.1405 1980 0.1885 1981 0.2292 1982 0.1132 1983 0.2714 1984 0.0796 1985 0.0624 1986 0.1491 1987 0.2866 1988 0.2886 1989 0.2088 1990 0.3701 1991 0.3240 1992 0.1898 1993 0.2226 1994 0.2817 1995 0.3991 1996 0.2587 1997 0.4629 1998 0.5775 1999 0.3970 2000 0.3671 2001 0.4952 2002 0.5591 2003 0.5583 2004 0.5352 2005 0.6061 2006 0.5563 2007 0.5480 2008 0.4871 2009 -999.0000 Posted by Protagoras, Sunday, 14 June 2009 2:36:08 AM
| |
Protagoras
I can understand those with vested interests in fossil fuel being in denial, but aren't they the minority? Terrific program for all who doubt at following link: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/stories/2009/2592909.htm Recommended listening to all. Posted by Fractelle, Sunday, 14 June 2009 11:04:34 AM
| |
Thanks for the interesting link Fractelle. I agree those with vested interests are the minority; however, a minority can inflict much damage.
The majority of multi-national pollutant industries tell us that they are addressing the ecological and economical ramifications of polluting the planet. An example of “good corporate citizenship” is a lawsuit lodged in a US court last Friday, where 250 Western Australian plaintiffs accuse Alcoa of knowingly and negligently poisoning surrounding communities with toxic emissions from its alumina facility 125km south of Perth. Illnesses suffered by residents, including various cancers, heart complications, sinus and skin problems and even death, are cited in the lawsuit. The plaintiffs lived within 9km of the Wagerup refinery. Under the heading ``Reckless Conduct and Disregard of Safety'' the lawsuit states: ``Alcoa is liable to plaintiffs for its reckless, wilful and wanton misconduct in knowingly and intentionally exposing plaintiffs and others in the surrounding communities, to toxic compounds and chemicals; intentionally concealing and misrepresenting the levels and dangerous characteristics of the various toxic chemicals and compounds it caused to be emitted in to the environment.'' The WA Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) have always denied these allegations in defence of Alcoa who continues plundering the unique jarrah forests of WA to extract bauxite. Why is it after 25 years of pleas, complaints and official appeals, submitted to the DEC (and ignored), 250 Australians have had to resort to the US courts when every state in Australia has a Department of Environment, Health, Mining and Resources to “protect” the environment, public health and employees? Recently, to cover their own backsides, the WA Department of Environment and Conservation finally charged Alcoa with pollution and criminal negligence but this was only after citizens commenced litigation with Erin Brockovich at the helm. I am in agreement with Paul Gilding’s recommendations for a sustainable future, however, I do not share his optimism that the big polluters in this nation will soon operate within ecological limits. Many will resist (and encouraged to do so) until our ecosystems finally collapse along with our economy. Posted by Protagoras, Sunday, 14 June 2009 7:07:12 PM
|
I know it seems trollish, but the lack of understanding of science is being actively encouraged by religion, and the lack of any religion to take a moral stand on this is telling. Given that they are actively campaigning towards authority as opposed to knowledge, I feel a drive to balance the arguments.