Hi Anthony,

<< I don't have to [be an expert, because] ... the combined views of the world's leading climate scientists, the worlds leading universities, NASA, CSIRO… merely end up confirming our worst fears>>

A request if I may: when you are channeling one of your higher authorities can you let us know.

I mean, who would have known when they read in your post that the ozone hole had << diminished and then virtually disappeared>>
whether it had the imprimatur of an encyclical from a higher power, or was just another case of Anthonyv rambling on!

Actually, the suggestion comes from one of your fellow parishioners. And heeding the old adage that “what is good for the goose is good for the gander” I’ll refer it to you for consideration:
<<Just a suggestion if I may, in order for myself and others to ascertain and properly reply to your arguments then a clear delineation of what you have pasted from other sources is always helpful. I find when including large sections from another the most appropriate way is to start with the word “Quote” and finish with “End quote”. That way there will be no confusion over what is the opinion of the other author and what is yours.>>
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=14019#242764

It might prevent us from jumping to wrong conclusions –and splitting hairs.

What do you say?

Good Morning folks.

The chemistry of atmospheric pollution is
extremely complex, for rain and sunlight
blend various components into a constantly
changing photo-chemical brew. As we know,
scientists are particularly worried about
the effect of ari-pollution on the planet's
ozone layer. Ozone is a rare form of oxygen
that is concentrated at very high altitudes,
where it absorbs about 90 percent of the
ultraviolet radiation from space.

Ultraviolet radiation is highly dangerous
to living things, for it can induce cancer,
burn skin, cause blindness, and destroy the
vegetation and plankton on which terrestrial
and aquatic life ultimately depend.

Unfortunately, some atmospheric pollutants -
particularly nitrogen dioxide and chlorofluorocarbons
from solvents and refrigerants - destroy ozone.
It seems that increasing pollution is gradually
depleting the ozone layer, allowing more radiation to
reach the earth's surface.

If this trend continues, the loss of ozone could
irreversibly alter the earth's ability to support life.

Another significant problem is acid rain. This
phenomenon is found primarily in heavily industrialized
areas of Western Europe and the Eastern United States
although it's spreading to adjacent regions, such as
parts of southern Europe and Canada.

Acid rain is believed to result primarily from the
burning of fossil fuels such as coal and gasoline.
This combustion pours oxides of sulfur and
nitrogen into the atmosphere, where they mix with
moisture, form acids, and are brought to the earth
in rain and snow.

The effects on many tree species are catastrophic,
and vast forest areas in the affected regions have
been damaged or even destroyed, particularly in
higher altitudes. Additionally, thousands of lakes
in these areas are becoming sterile, for they are
now too acidic for most fish and other aquatic life.

Ironically, the acid-rain problem may have been
aggravated by new technologies that "scrub" ash, which
is mostly alkaline from factory emissions, thereby
increasing the averall acidity of industrial pollutants.

cont'd...

cont'd ...

The most far-reaching effect of air pollution, however,
is a change in the global climate. As a result of the
burning of fuels and wastes, and the razing of forests,
the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is steadily
increasing. This gas creates a "greenhouse effect" on the
planet, for it allows solar rays to reach the earth's
surface but prevents heat from radiating back into space.

The consequence will be global warming, which will eventually
cause the melting of the polar ice caps, a rise in sea levels,
and changes in weather patterns. This warming effect is
already under way, and average global temperature is expected
to rise by 3 to 8 degrees Fahrenheit by 2030.

This seems like a small change, but minor fluctuations in
global temperature can have drastic consequences:
during the last ice age, when much of North America was
covered with sheets of ice more than a mile thick,
average temperature was only about 5 degrees cooler than today.

In pre-industrial societies, human
technology made comparatively little demand on the
resources of the environment. Populations were relatively
small, and for the most part people's material
needs were fairly limited and easily satisfied.

Industrialisation, however, has brought about rapid population
increases - and also an apparently endless expansion in people's
material desires. The most technologically advanced societies are
now digging ever deeper into the planetary environment for the
raw materials and energy they need to fuel their economic
development.

Nobody can deny that the planet has a finite amount of resources
or that it can tolerate only a limited amount of pollution.
But if world polution continues to grow rapidly, if
industrialisation spreads around the world, and if pollution
and resource depletion continues at an increasing rate -
and all these things are happening - the most optimistice
answer to "where is human society headed?" would be that,
one way or another, sweeping social changes await us.

See you on another thread.

Cheers.

Ah, SPQR,
Your endless irrelevencies merely confirm that you're becoming increasingly desperate.
Once again, you're on the wrong side of history and the wrong side of the argument.
There are only the internet nutjobs still denying AGW.
I don't have to 'channel'. I only have to read any one of hundreds of reputable science journals.
You should try it. Some of the words are long, but you can manage them if you work at it.
There's clearly no chance of you wising up, so I've said all I have to say on this thread.
I dare say I'll encounter you on other threads.
I hope so, I can always use a laugh.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.a

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWxTcQ3VG_4&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7gpAy4ivZ0&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3F9FbdqGRsg&feature=related

The evidence is overwhelming. Not only will 100's of millions of people die, the bigger picture will cause others to flee their dieing countries. You think the boat people are in great numbers now, wait until the full force of GW takes effect.

India is in bigger trouble than it thinks, and when the water is gone, so will most of life there. Large parts of the world already looks like the landscapes of MARS and you know what that means.

(Looks like nature will deal with our world numbers after all, but at a huge cost to all life concerning GW.)

As I see it in the near future, its going to be every country for themselves and Australia better wake up very soon to the fact. At the moment, the Australian country can support the currant rate of people, but add any more, the consequence's will spell our own doom.

The rats are only starting to leave their sinking ships and IMO Indonesia and Australia will have their hands full turning the poor souls back. Because of the huge volumes of people that will be displaced by the water and food shortages, Australia and its neighbours will only have enough to support themselfs.

Australian is geographically very lucky, and we should think about this before our own loving humanity for others see us dead in the water...no punt intended.

Save ourselves before saving others.

The clock is ticking.

Planet3

I see a lot of that atmospheric pollution around here.
And a fair amount of feeble down putting.
I may as well joint in.
SPQR finds nine tenths of the world science unproved, until it comes from his supporters.
Bazz chants his theme the sky is falling we are out of fossil fuels, not mate even close.
I find it Brilliant! that those lieing science freaks found a way to melt the ice in the Arctic.
Bet they gave the ESKIMOS CENTRAL HEATING, CUNNING!