The Danger of Conquering Climate Change.

Discussion in 'Alpine & Southern' started by Vermillion, Aug 1, 2006.

  1. daj

    daj First Runs

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 1970
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    Taipan, it is impossible to respond to most your comments as they are simply statments without basis or just absurd. How can one respond to a "but in 1492..." The science ones are dealt with over and over and over in our discussions.

    For example...
    "The correlation between CO2 and temperature doesnt exist." There are hundreds of papers which deal with this issue. There is a lead and a lag correlation between CO2 and temperature, which implies a feedback cycle. This is a mathematical fact - pull off the Vostok Deuterium and CO2 data and do the correlations for yourself. When done, please report back to us. In certain periods CO2 leads temperature such as the End Permian while in others temperature leads CO2 (end of most glacial maxima). The process of moving out of a glacial period is usually triggered by elevated solar radiation levels at high northern latitudes which commence the melting of the large glacier masses. This then leads to a feedback where lower albedo mean higher temperatures, mean higher CO2 mean higher temperatures, mean lower albedo, means... To pretend that things are linear without feedbacks is just plain silly. It is science by analogy, is just wrong.

    I am suprised you would quote Jaworowski as an authority. Please take the time to read http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=7 . These are facts that you can simply verify for yourself. While you are at it, go away and google scholar him. Let us know how many papers he has written on climate change.

    >Im sure people like you wish people like me would go away. But we wont while the science isnt even close to be settled.

    Taipan, I have no problem with you holding your beliefs, but dressing them up as science and fact is just not on. People are making decisions now about climate change. A scientists role is to not tell you how to make decisions, but give you the information necesary to make an informed decision. Your popularising of non-science means that some people will be making decisions which are ill informed, and which may cost them materially in the long term.

    You would be suprised to know that many climate scientists I know came into climate change trying to prove the concensus was wrong including myself - the first book I read on the matter was by John Daley - and I rember well hassling my 3rd year uni professors (this is natural for young scientists coming into a new field). But... since climate change became mainstream (late 1980s) our temperatures have gone through the roof, the satellite, ocean, subsurface & surface data have all come into agreement, we have precisely measured the radiative imbalance caused by greenhouse gases, we have precisely measured the greenhouse effect working at the surface, we have precisely measured the closing of the CO2 radiative windows... the list goes on. There is no wiggle room left. This is why the "advocates" are reduced to science by analogy reciting irrelevant tid-bits from history or engaged in playing the man rather than doing science.

    I'm interested to know why you are passionate about disproving the link between global warming and humans...

    Hill Billy
     
    #51 daj, Aug 9, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 14, 2013
  2. Taipan

    Taipan Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2001
    Messages:
    27,811
    Likes Received:
    3,410
    Location:
    Sun Peaks 2019-2020 Season
    One thing that anybody who reads this thread needs to understand very clearly is that the green house effect is absolutely essential to our survival. Greenhouse is a good thing not a bad thing.

    If we didnt have the greenhouse effect, average surface temperature would be -18C.

    I have no financial interest in and/or receive no financial gain from any company that produces petrol or coal or any of the deemed "Major CO2 contributors".

    I have no financial motivation in disproving global warming by human induced climate change.

    My interest in climate change is merely an extension of my interest in weather.

    My current position is that the change in global temperatures is a constantly changing and natural phenomenon. This is occuring predominately through solar cycles, and the interaction between cosmic rays and clouds.

    Remember clouds (water vapour) making up some 97% of greenhouse gas!

    Anyway this was posted without answer.

    Your described as a climate scientist. As you havent answered that question, i have to assume that you are either involved in research or are involved in some form of academic pursuit.

    Both of these exist because of the deemed necessity for climate scientists. If global warming caused by human factors disappeared, would not the number of climate scientists and climate academics suddenly shrink to a small number?

    Is your mortgage or rent paid directly or indirectly because of the perceived global warming threat. To put it another way, how many climate scientists existed 25 years ago as apposed to today.

    On that basis are you not far more motivated consciously or unconsciously for human induced global warming to be real.

    Now i dont suppose you have had a chance to have a look at this report.

    Polissar, P.J., Abbott, M.B., Wolfe, A.P., Bezada, M., Rull, V. and Bradley, R.S. 2006. Solar modulation of Little Ice Age climate in the tropical Andes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences: 10.1073/pnas.0603118103.

    A recently released study indicating that the MWP was warmer then todays warm period, but with CO2 levels 100 ppm less then what we have now.

    The MWP lasted from around 900 - 1200 AD. The little Ice Age lasted from around 1350 - 1880. At which time the planet started to warm up. The Storben Glacier in Norway has now been in retreat since 1750. Effectively the planet has been warming coming off a very low base since the early 1800's.

    Now isnt this amazing that the warming has been occuring long before mankind started making any contribution to CO2. Surely there should be another reason?
     
    #52 Taipan, Aug 10, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2013
  3. The Ravenous Frenchman

    The Ravenous Frenchman First Runs

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2005
    Messages:
    60
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Canberra
    Taipan your responses re. the global warming issue seem to indicate a profound lack of understanding of the scientific method, not to mention your to make illogical statements. Your post above is an excellent example. Your argument, as far as I can follow it, is that since warming occurred in the past without being forced by human-induced changes to C02 in the atmosphere, then current warming is also not caused by human-induced changes to C02 in the atmosphere? This is illogical. To determine the relative impact of Co2 changes, you need to investigate the contributions of many factors and try to separate them out. As Daj points out the evidence for a human impact is overwhelming. And the argument about the -18deg C thing and global warming being good? Please.

    Your attempt to discredit the link between CO2 concentrations and temperature using the graph above is absurd, since you are ignoring the intrinsic spatial structure of climate change. Is anyone saying that some stations may not cool down even as the average temperature of the globe is warming? Answer: no. Putting up straw men and then discrediting them is not scientific.

    Science does not progress using a scattergun approach as you have used repeatedly in your posts. In fact, this is a tactic often used by those trying to destroy science (e.g. the christian fundamentalist lobby and intelligent design). Science is not a democratic system where everyone votes on what seems to be the best theory at a given momment. Theories are constructed gradually and are designed to best fit the evidence. You yourself could alter the way that climatologists view global warming by publishing one paper that demonstrates that humans are not contributing to the current warming. Why is the consensus view that humans are at least partly responsible? Because it makes most sense, given the available data.

    This of course leads into your ludicrous assertation that scientists fabricate the whole issue to make dollars. A grand conspiracy!! One could equally argue that evolutionary biologists have fabricated evolutionary theory to sell more text books and visit international conferences and to make fun of creationists, or that soil scientists have fabricated the salinity issue to grab the cash? Has it ever occurred to you that scientific funding tends to be allocated to problems that have a real scientific basis and that scientists research these areas because there is a mandate for this work?

    If you really want to overturn current consensus, why don't you actually get out and do the hard yards like those of us who have PhDs and demonstrate what's wrong with the theory.
     
  4. HiLo

    HiLo Old n' Crusty

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2001
    Messages:
    58,706
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Yarra Valley
    Verm titled this thread "The Danger of Conquering Climate Change", using the term "conquer climate change" as if it was a quote from and the clear goal of somebody.

    Who?

    This guy? [​IMG]

    Is this whole thread a campaign against a misrepresentation?
     
    #54 HiLo, Aug 10, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 11, 2013
  5. daj

    daj First Runs

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 1970
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    Taipan your accusations are very very offensive. They are unanswerable as by definition anybody who is an expert in climate and paid as a climate scientists and who agrees with the published literature that climate change is largely human induced is on the gravy train. A scientists who ignores the climate literature is unfit to work in the profession. This is not gravy train stuff, this is the way science works.

    Would you suggest medical doctors fabricate diseases or an airline pilot fabricates gravity to pay their mortages?

    >Remember clouds (water vapour) making up some 97% of greenhouse gas!

    Buzz wrong answer. If you take out CO2 then temperature will drop and via the Clausius Clapyeron equation so will a lot of water vapour as rain. It is wrong to suggest that 97% of the greenhouse effect is due to water as much of the water is a feedback induced by the greenhouse gas CO2. The same effect works in a warming world... increase the temperature and you increase the water vapour. And that is exactly what all our observations show with surface dewpoints increasing, and as a result tropical upper air temperatures sky rocketing.

    RE the Andes paper (see http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract...rcetype=HWCIT). Guess you didn't both to check the authors list (Bradley has co-authored many papers with Mann) and didn't read the abstract. It concludes with "These results highlight the sensitivity of high-altitude tropical regions to relatively small changes in radiative forcing, implying even greater probable responses to future anthropogenic forcing." Guess these guys believe in the enhanced greenhouse effect after all.

    >Now isnt this amazing that the warming has been occuring long before mankind started making any contribution to CO2. Surely there should be another reason?

    What, another strawman? No one said the only cause of climate change is greenhouse gases... even the IPCC has attribute most of the pre 1950 warming to increases in solar activity. Sadly, however, the sun has cooled since 1950, volcanic activity has increased, but... our temperatures have sky rocketed.

    >Would their be the same amount of research into climate change if it wasnt "deemed" by some climate scientists to be changing dramatically?

    The rate of change is defined by observations. The current warming trend is 0.2C/decade which translates into a lifting of snowlines globally of around 30m/decade. We have seen a 50% decline in spring snow depths in the snowy mountains in the last 40 years as a direct result of the warming.

    Isn't this dramatic? Doesn't it concern you just a tad? What is dramatic in your books?

    BTW, regarding your motivations you are off the mark to think I would expect you to be motivated by money. I am yet to meet an amateur or professional sceptic for whom money is the driver. The question is.. however, what would makes someone who is usually polite hurl insults and spend hours digging up pseudo science from industry websites to disprove that the 1000s of climate scientists are wrong. Why should you care? Do you really thinks 1000s of people have developed a con extending over 20+ years which has been accepted by just about every government in this world? And why does it matter to you that they have come up with the conclusions they have?

    Hill Billy
     
    #55 daj, Aug 10, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 14, 2013
  6. Taipan

    Taipan Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2001
    Messages:
    27,811
    Likes Received:
    3,410
    Location:
    Sun Peaks 2019-2020 Season
    Self Portrait Hilo? If you have nothing valuable to contribute go away.

    RF - nothing illogical about my comments at all.

    When anything goes wrong these days with regard to the weather it is because of global warming! The reality is that we are like kindergarten children in the school of climatology. We dont understand the climate of this planet. Period.

    How can i say this. Easy - if we understood the climate of this planet it would be easy to build models to replicate it. For you Daj BZZZZZZZ. we cant even get weather forecasts correct 3 days out!

    I may suggest that you may not like my comments - but that doesnt of themselves make it wrong.

    The financial issue is important because anybody who dares to be a sceptic about global warming is branded a heretic and in the pay of the coal/petrol industry.

    Thats what you were fishing for Daj werent you! To try and pin the profit motive on me. Im not the one receiving financial reward for there beliefs here.

    I receive no financial benefit. This is merely an interest. Its a hobby.

    And Daj where do you get off with your hollier then thou attitude.

    So yes you are on the gravy train diverting funds away from real scientists who could really be determining climate change issues. That goes for you too RF.

    You may have a PhD. So what! Whats it in. 20 years ago Id only completed my first degree, and i was asked to take a solictor to Tokyo, because they werent certain that he could find his way from Narita to Ginza. Met plenty of intellectual fools in my life. RF that may not apply to you - but i reserve my judgement.

    The interesting thing is that to suggest that scientists may have a financial interest in global warming is met with shock and horror!

    You dish it out you get some back!

    Welcome to the real world Daj.

    There are also a lot of other scientists around the world, who are starved of research funding why the funds are diverted to the CO2 gravy train.

    Lets repeat it here once again.

    In 1989, Stephen Schneider advised: “To capture the public imagination . . . we have to . . . make simplified dramatic statements, and little mention of any doubts one might have.
    . . . Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective and being honest.â€


    Let us not forget Jones (From Mann Jones Hockeystick infamy) when asked for the data and methodology of their work which appeared in the 2001 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

    "Why would i want to give it to you. Your only going to try and find something worng with it. This is my lifes work. Ive been working on it for 25 years!"

    Peer review. :rolleyes: . Taken the best part of 5 years to pull down dodgy science.

    Scientists are not some special species on this planet. As Daj has already said several pages above, he was once sceptical about global warming but his lecturers, instructed him on the correct way to think, and so he is now a believer.

    Well done Daj, please to hear your a free thinker.

    The theory of global warming is that temperature increases are caused by the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. Part of the CO2 increase has been caused by humans. This is over and above the natural production of CO2 which means humans are causing climate change.

    RF you miss the point of why I put up the Amundsen/Scott base.

    Theory of Global warming is that the poles will warm first. Well you can see that Amundsen Base defies that theory.

    Secondly there are a number of studies around which show that Artic was actually warmer during the 1930's then it is now.

    That was when CO2 levels were at least 40 ppm less then they are now.

    The greatest increase in temps have been between 1890 - 1940. From IPCC

    [​IMG]

    That was when CO2 were a lot less then they are currently.

    Daj you were spot on, because it is generally accepted that that period of 1900 - 1940 was subject to higher solar radiation.

    The two issues I take significant issue with is that CO2 increase = increase in temperatures.

    Secondly that the major cause for global warming is CO2 and that we know everything else, and we have proved that it is the CO2 causing the increase in temps.

    Well some real scientists disagree, but im sure that they are shouted down by the CO2 global warming proponents.

    Now Daj. you tried to pour a huge bucket of water over me above about water vapour! Im glad you did.

    Svensmark and Friis-Christensen seemed to have found some real climate modifiers. See their paper on "Variation of Cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage - a missing link in solar- climate relationships.

    Cosmic flux and global cloud coverage

    The good news is that there is now some 60 real scientists quietly working away on this issue.
     
    #56 Taipan, Aug 10, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 14, 2013
  7. HiLo

    HiLo Old n' Crusty

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2001
    Messages:
    58,706
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Yarra Valley
    I think it's people like you and daj who've lost the plot here. Go back and carefully reread Verm's first post. He explicitly said "This thread is definately not about the specifics of climate change", and what are you guys on about? Exactly that. While I may have been a little playful in my post, I was mainly trying to get people back onto the somewhat different perspective Verm was taking.

    Lighten up. [​IMG]
     
    #57 HiLo, Aug 10, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2013
  8. daj

    daj First Runs

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 1970
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    Taipan I will no longer respond to your defamatory posts. There was a nice article in New Scientists a couple of months back about the enthusiastic amateur sceptics - suggest you have a read of it. The question is.... what would make you insult people you have never met and make accusations which are liberlous? Would you do this face to face?

    BTW, you clearly don't realise that the relationship between temperature and solar cycle length (discussed in your linked paper) has been shown to be a fiction. This was shown in EOS two years ago. I'm suprised you haven't updated your understanding... An electronic copy of the paper can be found at stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/DamonLaut2004.pdf .

    Have we finished with this false science debate?

    Hill Billy
     
  9. filski

    filski Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2011
    Messages:
    35,942
    Likes Received:
    14,142
    Taipan, I thought I'd demonstrated to you the part that water vapour plays as a GHG. Are you not interested in the scientific process? You keep trotting out this line so I think not. You are becoming abusive and quite frankly acting like a troll in here. You have no argument so why don't you recognise the fact and concede defeat.
     
  10. Taipan

    Taipan Old n' Crusty Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2001
    Messages:
    27,811
    Likes Received:
    3,410
    Location:
    Sun Peaks 2019-2020 Season
    Went to have a look at that article you suggested. Googled it and quess what. Only 1 copy held at - you guessed it Real Climate, Michael Manns home site. They also had significant trouble with numbers, proxies, calculations from memory. Im sure you dont want to be reminded about that.

    Now romfrantic recently said something about you and Monash university and seeing you there. If you lecture/tutor students like you do me on this site, you are in fact not lecturing but i would suggest attempting to brain wash them with you own ideological position.

    Searching the net, there is a huge amount of working being done on alternative reasons for climate change, nothing to do with CO2 climate change. Thats not amatuers like me, these are real scientists, working on real projects, and finding real alternatives.

    However your position is - They are all wrong. Weve got this all worked out.

    On the issue of Libelous comments - mate you need to get out in the real world or down off your perch or both.

    I recently ran into an associate at a work site carrying a rifle, who made a statement how he'd like to use it on me. Another ........!

    Now we have all had our dummy spit - back to some discussion.

    So as suggested by Hilo - in a relevant post above (Thankyou Hilo :thumbs: ), this thread is about conquering climate change.

    To change the climate humans must have a mechanism that does affect the climate.

    Some here suggest that the warming on the earth is caused by CO2 and other human caused GHG. Thats correct isnt it?

    If you were correct that would mean we could potentially warm the planet up, either accidently or on purpose.

    Now Daj this century we have had a warming for the first 40 years, then a cooling for 30 years and then another warming since 1970.

    Now you suggesting that the increase of 22 parts per million (most of which was natural CO2 anyway), has caused the majority of the warming.

    My position is that we cannot change the climate as we are yet to find a mechanism to change the worlds climate. On micro climates - certainly there is some evidence if you also subscribe to the static world position.

    There continues to be real debate about whether the world is warming or in fact cooling. We have issues of urban heat islands, we have issues of calibration and accuracy of records, we have issues of degradation of satellite orbits affecting temperatures, all these things add significant uncertainty into the warming/cooling issue.

    My position is that CO2 is not the cause of climate change and lags climate change, that nature contributes the vast majority of CO2 to the atmosphere, which minimizes human contribution.

    The main driving force on the world climate is and will continue to our sun and cosmic inputs into not only direct heat on the planet, but also its affect on cloud creation and the warming / cooling affect of that.

    As we cannot change these or influence these things in any way, we wont be able to change or control climate.
     
    #60 Taipan, Aug 11, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2013
  11. daj

    daj First Runs

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 1970
    Messages:
    329
    Likes Received:
    1
    Location:
    Melbourne, Vic, Australia
    zzzz... Tapian have you read anything on this blog? (while your at it, have a read of some of the insults & liberlous comments you have made).

    BTW, EOS is published by the American Geophysical Union which is one of the most prestigous science organisation in the world. It has nothing to do with Mann. Did you even read the paper, or did you self censor as it doesn't fit your work view?

    Prehaps you should start your own blog. Lets call it Taipan's world view. A world where scientist are all part of a big conspiracy, where magical green monster (or is that "magic cosmic waves") cause warming, and the laws of physics don't apply.

    Hill Billy
     
  12. Go Native

    Go Native One of Us

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2004
    Messages:
    5,568
    Likes Received:
    63
    Location:
    Inverloch
    My god man you are posting this question on a skiing website forum! Of course we want it cooler, we want more snow!!!! All other concerns mean nothing. :p
     
    #62 Go Native, Aug 11, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2013
  13. Spiceman

    Spiceman Part of the Furniture

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2000
    Messages:
    24,907
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    All around Oz...... bit by bit
    I personally don't think we are capable of changing the temperature... I'm all for reducing pollutants though so I am happy for cheaper more viable fuels for our earth...

    I personally think there is so much conjecture in global warming theory it isn't funny... it's all give or take this many degrees or this many mm of sea level rise... farting in the wind basically. I have not seen anything to prove otherwise. daj, do you think we are capable of reducing temps?? I mean seriously, what would it really take according to climate change theory? I'm not knocking you, I'm asking a serious question..
     
  14. Spiceman

    Spiceman Part of the Furniture

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2000
    Messages:
    24,907
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    All around Oz...... bit by bit
    Does anyone seriously think we have the power to reduce future temps??
     
  15. D-eye

    D-eye Photographer and skier Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2001
    Messages:
    33,786
    Likes Received:
    3,243
    Location:
    Canberra
    adapt or die [​IMG]
     
    #65 D-eye, Aug 19, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 11, 2013
  16. main street

    main street Sun Peaks Resident

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Messages:
    70,475
    Likes Received:
    4,388
    Location:
    Sun Peaks, British Columbia
    One simple method ... a bit sci-fi though....(although not totally beyond the realms of possibility...) would be to construct an enormous "umbrella" (kinda like a solar sail.... but different...)& park it in a geo-synchronous orbit somewhere between the current orbits of Venus & Mercury.

    It's dimensions would be massive that's true, but, get the maths right & you have a permanent eclipse.

    I bet that'd cool things off a bit.

    Just a theory fellas.... just a theory.

    Cheers..... :cheers:
     
  17. D-eye

    D-eye Photographer and skier Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2001
    Messages:
    33,786
    Likes Received:
    3,243
    Location:
    Canberra
    and what's to say that doesn't screw things further ?

    better off putting our powerplants in orbit. That would have bigger effect on cutting down pollution.
     
  18. main street

    main street Sun Peaks Resident

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2006
    Messages:
    70,475
    Likes Received:
    4,388
    Location:
    Sun Peaks, British Columbia
    I didn't say that it would necessarily change things for the better..... just that it would be a way to bring about a "change"......

    As to what the result actually would be if this was to happen? ..... comments?
     
  19. qlder

    qlder First Runs

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2006
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Brisbane
    I do !!! , otherwise whats the alternative , sit back , stick our heads in the sand and hope that Taipan is right .
    Do we allow all the rainforests to be levelled , build more coal fired powerplants , leave all the lights on , drive bigger cars and show no regard the envrironment on hunch that the scientists may be wrong , just so we don't have to compromise our extravagent lifestyles

    Human Beings have a very long and proven track record of destroying the environment , if we got rid of the human race the world may have a chance of healing itself.

    I've read the articles on Global Dimming and Global Warming and I would rather install power saving devices , drive smaller cars , install solar panels , build and live in an energy neutral home and as an individual reduce my C02 emissions only to find in 50 years I was wrong than to sit back and do nothing.

    People power can change the world for the better ,
    and I hope we can for my future grand and great grandchildrens sake.

    I also believe scientist working to disprove that CO2 emissions are better funded than those who are concerned about C02 and climate change.

    Does the Fossil Fuel Industry have power and influence ????????
     
    #69 qlder, Aug 19, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2013
  20. Spiceman

    Spiceman Part of the Furniture

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2000
    Messages:
    24,907
    Likes Received:
    2
    Location:
    All around Oz...... bit by bit
    Originally posted by qlder:
    I do !!!

    And what do you base that on??

    Otherwise whats the alternative , sit back , stick our heads in the sand and hope that Taipan is right .
    Do we allow all the rainforests to be levelled , build more coal fired powerplants , leave all the lights on , drive bigger cars and show no regard the envrironment on hunch that the scientists may be wrong , just so we don't have to compromise our extravagent lifestyles


    I'm not sure what all that has to do with my question.. I never said I was apposed to better forms of power and fuel for vehicles etc, and I never suggested we keep chopping trees down. What I asked is, do you seriously think driving less polluted cars and getting better cleaner fuel and energy is really going to reduce our temps?? By the way, I'm not against those things at all.

    Human Beings have a very long and proven track record of destroying the environment , if we got rid of the human race the world may have a chance of healing itself.

    So you think we should get rid of the human race?? Not sure where your going with it...

    I've read the articles on Global Dimming and Global Warming and I would rather install power saving devices , drive smaller cars , install solar panels , build and live in an energy neutral home and as an individual reduce my C02 emissions only to find in 50 years I was wrong than to sit back and do nothing.

    People power can change the world for the better ,
    and I hope we can for my future grand and great grandchildrens sake.


    Like I said, I'd like to do those things too, ie, make the planet cleaner etc, however most people DO NOT want to pay for it.. I think the rising oil prices are actually giving us a chance, however I'm surprised what little alternatives there are. I mean the govt in our country is now going to give rebates for gas conversion... but I'm not sure that will reduce temps, or that I even want them reduced.

    I'm just not sure how doing any of it will reduce temps... I know the theory, and I'm actually happy if people reduce pollution, but things can change drastically even naturally and blow all these calculations out of the water and we are back to square one... Personally I don't think it will work
     
  21. et

    et First Runs

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2000
    Messages:
    612
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    sydney,nsw
    Actually, that raises a pretty important point, which is often ignored in these sort of debates. Most people prefer warm climates - particularly in the frosty northern countries, thou Aussies do too. That is why people flock to warmer climates when they can and why there are megabucks in beach-side investment around the world. Skiers/boarders are the decided minority.

    Since a preference for warmer climates reflects what people want, why is warming an unmitigated disaster ?

    This is one of the reasons why the economic issues surrounding warming are much more nuanced then the emotional/environmental ones.

    An associated argument is that although warming will contribute to some disasters (hurricanes, flooding) it will alleviate others (people freezing to death, as frequently happens in US/Europe).

    I have read that warming of 2.5C would actually benefit the global economy. While such a precise figure could be challenged, it is rare to hear of the benefits of warming. If we proceed from the starting point that waming only produces costs then this must imply we have optimal tempature at the moment (or that we would be better off in a cooler world) [​IMG]
     
    #71 et, Aug 21, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 17, 2013
  22. agentBM

    agentBM Part of the Furniture

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2000
    Messages:
    15,104
    Likes Received:
    593
    Location:
    Space..traveling through the vast non emptiness
    Ummm....back on topic - the "attitude" of conquering is the BIG mistake - the environment will dispense with us long before we could ever hope to make such claim. Many scientists work on agendas as some may be commissioned by the government to issue a report, only to have 'other' reputable scientists contest the findings of same. There is definately bias in science - as is the case with everything pretty well....some are, some are not - happens in most industries. You can get honest lawyers and dis-honest lawyers - same principal of integrity base line.

    There are definately market forces at play with any environment issues - crickey, the reason the gov is slow on the uptake, is to portect the 'economy'. No freaking use having an economy when we live in an unbreathable dirty freaking stink hole which is what we end up with through the "economy", oh yeah, we have the ability to buy barely affordable houses too and pay those off under duress, which, can be a foundation to someone's suceptibility and hence persuasion to show bias.
     
  23. Vermillion

    Vermillion Pool Room Ski Pass: Gold

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2005
    Messages:
    71,945
    Likes Received:
    26,548
    Location:
    Cranhole, Melbourne, VIC
    finally this thread is sorta back on track. [​IMG]

    if we can heat it up then surely we can cool it back down if we tried hard enough. Imagine if burning coal/oil was an ENDOTHERMIC reaction. Oh sh*t, i really shouldnt have said that, its gonna open up a bigger can of worms than the XXL Spam u can buy. :headbang:
     
    #73 Vermillion, Aug 21, 2006
    Last edited by a moderator: Nov 11, 2013