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 > The climate giant awakes. Have we turned a corner? > Comments

The climate giant awakes. Have we turned a corner? : Comments

By Paul Gilding, published 22/10/2009

The world is turning our way and while the climate change crisis is still coming, the crisis response may not be far behind.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
I think the tipping point where we'll see bipartisan action truly intended to reduce emissions - rather than give a coat of greenwash to business as usual - is still a long way off. From the content of those posting comments, denial that there is even a serious problem is alive and well. From the policy positions of Labor and Coalition there isn't real will to tackle this; certainly not at the fundamental level of amounts of coal being dug up and burned or the amount of emissions being released. Labor betting everything on CCS is indicative of the lack of seriousness - just an excuse to keep selling and burning coal.
Given that governments are getting consistent scientific advice that this is serious and urgent and, despite the protests, alternative explanations that mean we can continue dumping excess CO2 into the atmosphere without cost or consequence are little more than hot air, betting our future our scientist are all completely wrong is dangerous.
No-one is making it up, no-one is engaged in a conspiracy to put us back into the stone age and ignoring the leading experts because facing this head on will be painful is not nearly as ill-advised as letting the worst case unfold without any effort to reduce the impacts.
Whoever is in government, the simple fact is that the scientific advice isn't going to change, not without some kind of politically motivated purge of government sponsored science demanding the "correct" results. And the prospects of damaging consequences are increased -not reduced - as a result.
Posted by Ken Fabos, Sunday, 25 October 2009 11:51:33 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
Wrong, Ken, the IPCC is making it up. The scientific backing for the AGW scam is not there.

In 2007, the UN flew 12,500 delegates and media personnel to Bali. They were wined dined, lied to, and given prepackaged press releases

Ban Ki Moon based his ridiculous rant, not on the then current science, but on 2003 predictions which had already been proved wrong by 2007.

Scientists, concerned to present real science, who requested a clearance to address the gathering were refused entry. The information released by the UN, was political, not scientific, and was not current, because global cooling commenced in 2002. Warming finished in 1998.

Lord Monckton was refused entry as a journalist, without explanation, but gained entry attached to one of the many ngo's at the gabfest. His attempt to address a Press gathering was terminated by security.

The impetus of this scurrilous function has carried the media to this day. Monckton, who wrote an article listing the 35 lies in Gore's movie, wrote an article listing the 50 lies in Gore's speech at Bali. He is one of the few voices always raised to expose the truth about Gore and the IPCC.

The UN backing for AGW is political, not scientific. If it succeeds, its parasitic existence will receive a great boost. It will spend freely to buy the media, as it did with the proceeds of its last big swindle, the Oil for Food scam.
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 25 October 2009 8:26:21 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
VK3AUU, You say I have hit upon the problem but if you look closely at the climate change issue you will see Joe Average is NOT the problem. Why? Because Joe Average can only buy what is for sale and what is for sale is directly related to what is economical,viable and allowed by Govt regulation. This is out of Joe Average's hands because no matter how much he wants to drive a for example, hydrogen car, they are not currently viable so he cannot. No matter how much Joe Average thinks of alternatives he has to drive 20 km to work in a combustion engine car and that is that.

If Joe Average wants something done about the environment because big changes are out of his control he elects a new Government. The new Government then accuses Joe Average of being the problem and uses this as an excuse for their unwillingness or inability to change anything.

The truth is 1. We don't have the viable technology as yet to make massive overnight changes to emissions 2.There's too many people 3. Its no-ones fault.
Posted by Atman, Sunday, 25 October 2009 9:46:34 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
Atman, it isn't just the motor car that Joe average drives, although judging by the number of big four wheel drives that I see picking up kids after school, they are playing a big part. Joe average is also being seduced into buying all the latest gadgets that all have a limited life span and which all cost in terms of energy.

Leo Lane. If the earth is cooling again, how come the north polar ice is still melting to the extent that it is expected to virtually ice free during the next northern summer? Why are the glaciers in the Himalayas still melting at an alarming rate? Get real.

Clownfish "More cheap shucksters lining up to stuff their pockets with the easy money that'll come rolling in from Emissions Trading"
You and I are at last in agreement about something. No good will come of it whatsoever and the mug punters are the ones who will have to pay.
Posted by VK3AUU, Monday, 26 October 2009 6:42:39 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
VK3AUU. You need to learn to distinguish fact from fiction
Nonsensical articles about Arctic Ice appear year after year. Apart from slightly increasing, the ice remains the same. It melts in summer and comes back in winter.

http://leatherheadblog.com/2008/02/04/google-earth-shows-arctic-ice-not-receding/?referer=sphere_related_content/

There are thousands of glaciers on the Himalayas. Some advance, some retreat, as is normal for glaciers. Insufficient study has been done to ascertain whether there is an imbalance in the volume of advance against retreat.

When you say “cooling again”, you seem unaware that the Earth has been cooling since the Medieval Warm Period, when it was much hotter than it is now.

Satellite readings since 1978 show that there has been no warming in the Southern Hemisphere since 1978, so we have not had global warming since that time, just Northern Hemisphere warming.

The hottest year in the US was not 1998, but 1934, as Gore’s mate Hansen was forced to admit, so that is a substantial part of the Northern Hemisphere cooling since 1934.

The contribution by Australia to CO2 in the atmosphere is about one millionth. I wonder, if we are subjected to the nonsensical rigours of an ETS, what part of the millionth would be affected. I suspect very little, but of course, the aim of the exercise is to channel money and power to the UN and to the fat fraud. It would achieve that.
Posted by Leo Lane, Monday, 26 October 2009 10:56:31 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
Ken

Leo Lane (a.k.a. Nick Lanelaw) is an archival spruiker for the Lavoisier Group, the Australian right-wing think tank well known in the ‘Howard’ years as inculcated in the ‘greenhouse mafia’.

Guy Pearce accurately portrays the Lavoisier Group and its role in the ‘deny’n’delay’ brigade in his book High & Dry – well worth a read if only to get a picture on where Leo/Nick and his cohorts are coming from.

Leo/Nick also likes linking to Tom Harris and John McClean (‘snowman’ on OLO) – the latter who claims to be a “climate data analyst” here in Oz ... I guess you could even be described as one yourself :)

Leo Lane/Nick Lanelaw is just regurgitating long held chants and rants;

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6745#102059

Of course, you could just browse the history of both ... nothing new, really.
_______

Atman,

You say;

1. "We don't have the viable technology as yet to make massive overnight changes to emissions

2. There's too many people

3. Its no-ones fault."

So, what is society going to do about it? That is the bun-fight that the UNFCCC are trying to sort out.

_________

VK3AUU

<<the north polar ice is still melting to the extent that it is expected to virtually ice free during the next northern summer>>

This is not right. It is expected that Arctic sea-ice will only be a winter event in about 40-50 years.
Posted by Q&A, Monday, 26 October 2009 10:57:05 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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