Climate Change

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Scott

Do you mean for the 30+ years that smoking was proven to be bad for you but the biggest advertisers in any medical journals were tobacco companies?

Or the Doctors that were paid for endorsements, or just the blokes that were upfront and on the take?

Yep that would be it....all about MONEY

Now how do we fix the climate change problem?

Oh that's right carbon tax.....all about MONEY again.....

[irish2]

The interesting thing no politicians have mentioned is carbon sinks. The earths atmosphere was formed by photosynthesising algae. With increased phosphates and nitrates present in a body of water you end up with algal blooms that consume massive quantities of carbon in very short time frames.

[colinl]

Originally Posted by Charliewool

Well mate.. maybe I should get your 2yr old daughter to run my engineering business then?
Because, damn sure it's going to take someone a lot smarter than me if we see the likes of a carbon tax bestowed upon us!
Have you ANY idea of the ramifications that this extra tax will have on already fragile industrial business in Australia?
Maybe NOT a huge burden personally, BUT some of my largest customers.. The petro-chems, the wool scourers & wool processors, the poultry and meat processors, the plastics and car industry... They'll pay through the nose... Tell me where and how this massive burden will be passed on?..
OR will they just up tents and away camels to China/India etc, like SO many have already, leaving us as the world's biggest warehouse???

Mate, you like your Google?... Have a search for exactly WHAT % our esteemed scholars reckon Australia emits in CO2's?.. Is it 0.1 something%? Whatever it is, it's a **** in the bloody ocean compared to the Chinas, Indias, Russias, Americas etc!
Yet we just have to be seen as the world leaders / 1st off the blocks with carbon taxes and CO2 reductions?... WHY?

I'll tell you WHY.... It's because we have way too many rainbow chasing, brain-washed, tree-hugging do-gooders who couldn't give a rat's bum about the fairdinkum roots of this country and what's kept it ticking along so good for so long!

So is your problem with climate change as a concept or the proposed methods of dealing with it? I see two different issues here.

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by irish2

The interesting thing no politicians have mentioned is carbon sinks. The earths atmosphere was formed by photosynthesising algae. With increased phosphates and nitrates present in a body of water you end up with algal blooms that consume massive quantities of carbon in very short time frames.

Google is your friend irish2
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/gove...deduction.aspx
http://www.land.vic.gov.au/Greenhous...2575BE001E7B2E

http://www.zerowasteaustralia.org/au...-sink-victoria

http://agric.wa.gov.au/objtwr/import...gestrategy.pdf

[turboxf]

[QUOTE=Yellow_Festiva]I also agree with this.

Plastic shopping bags are the anti-Christ it seems. So it's fine to ban them, but what do you use to line the bin at home?? Ohhh you mean now I need to BUY plastic bags for my bin. Smart move that.

the bloke was referring to shopping bags , you know the ones , they get left somewhere & end up in the stormwater drains & get sweped out to the bays& oceans. i don't think garbage bags full of garbage goes down stormwater DRAINS DO THEY, THE GARBOS TAKE THEM TO THE TIP?????

[flappist]

Originally Posted by irish2

The interesting thing no politicians have mentioned is carbon sinks. The earths atmosphere was formed by photosynthesising algae. With increased phosphates and nitrates present in a body of water you end up with algal blooms that consume massive quantities of carbon in very short time frames.

What a stupid concept.....how do you tax that

[rodderz]

Originally Posted by Charliewool

I'll tell you WHY.... It's because we have way too many rainbow chasing, brain-washed, tree-hugging do-gooders who couldn't give a rat's bum about the fairdinkum roots of this country and what's kept it ticking along so good for so long!

Spot on Charlie! It's knuckleheads like Bob Down from the Greens saying that coal mining has contributed to the latest floods and that they should pay for some of the recovery costs.

And I suppose the coal industry caused the big floods in the early 1900's, or 1800's, or the melting of the ice age before man was even here. I work in the horticulture industry but there's too many people nowadays trying to be the one to stick up for something they don;t know much about as it's the "cool" thing to do. They should stick to their soy linseed loaf and tofu!

Doing a job in the city at the moment (in a prominent hippy suburb), one of the ladies there wanted to use aussie timber for the decking as merbau displaces the orangutans in Indonesia...I spose saving the monkey's is healthier than our koala's and possums losing their home along with our forests? lol

[fmc351]

[QUOTE=turboxf]

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

I also agree with this.

Plastic shopping bags are the anti-Christ it seems. So it's fine to ban them, but what do you use to line the bin at home?? Ohhh you mean now I need to BUY plastic bags for my bin. Smart move that.

the bloke was referring to shopping bags , you know the ones , they get left somewhere & end up in the stormwater drains & get sweped out to the bays& oceans. i don't think garbage bags full of garbage goes down stormwater DRAINS DO THEY, THE GARBOS TAKE THEM TO THE TIP?????

some people use the shopping bags as garbage bags is what I think he was referring too.


And didnt they make it compulsory for all shopping bags (grocery) to be biodegradable and break down after months in landfill? I know they dont last with parts in them like they used to.

[turboxf]

Originally Posted by fmc351

some people use the shopping bags as garbage bags is what I think he was referring too.


And didnt they make it compulsory for all shopping bags (grocery) to be biodegradable and break down after months in landfill? I know they dont last with parts in them like they used to.

is that what he was saying, who knows, he just didn't explain what he meant, he must have very small bins , we are not mind readers????????????? or are we?

[ltd]

Originally Posted by flappist

Yep that would be it....all about MONEY

Now how do we fix the climate change problem?

Oh that's right carbon tax.....all about MONEY again.....

Exactly. I think for the true believers though we're
The people who don't realise this whole global warming/climate change thing has been about nothing other than money, are the type of people I'd like to sell the harbour bridge to. You know the type, the same ******* idiots that make ads on TV with electrical appliances spewing out black balloons that float away, even though carbon dioxide is heavier than oxygen and nitrogen. They're the kind of gullible ecotard that deserve an uppercut for their arrogance, ignorance and rank stupidity.

I recently had an argument with an ecotard who was so convinced that out of all the gases that made up the atmosphere, there was 40% carbon dioxide in it. According to this *** clown, there was 20% CO2 ten years ago but now there is 40%. Dumb ***. Even once shown how many parts per million there was in the atmosphere, this idiot still wouldn't shut up despite the obvious flaw in his argument. They change tact, and then argue that man has to do something and that all the scientists agree. BS. There is no consensus. Even the IPCC has admitted there's no consensus. It's like Gaia worship is the new religion, and wind turbines are the crucifix symbol to this new religion. Speaking of which, has anyone realised just how much power those eyesores use? When the wind doesn't blow, they have to actually use power from the grid to keep them turning to prevent damage to the massive blades. Wow, what brilliant insight ecotard, what’s next? How about a broadband scheme that will bankrupt the nation and be obsolete by the time it’s done? Check.

Anyway I digress. If morons are happy to be sold ostensibly a new tax by their government who has done nothing to enrich anyone’s lives, then so be it. I'll opt out and live in Montana where even their idiotic government (get into debt, solve it by getting into further debt.... like here) has canned the carbon trading scheme.
Why? Simply because the disciples of Gaia worship like Tim Flannery, Al (two asses and five chins) Gore are held in such high esteem; that their faithful still can't look past how all their predictions have been wrong. That, and I hate being subjected to laws initiated by big government which will only impoverish the nation. It makes ordinary folk who normally go about their lives into petty criminals just to survive. That and the ethos of the ecotard; tell an unproven lie often enough until it becomes truth. Just like Bob Brown reading a Hustler magazine - doesn't make any sense.

Anyway, I'm buggering off to the pub to talk about and read about cars. I suspect several others on this post will be good little disciples of Gaia and just stay on this topic all day repeating ad nauseum the same BS lines fed to them from the church of ****ology.

[turboxf]

We as consumers certainly stuff up plenty of eco systems that rely on clean environs not bloody dirty crap dumped in there back yards or aqua systems.

just imagine ( hypothetically ) if a higher species from outer space saw what was happening & said , those earth people deserve all that is coming to them , they are stuffing it themselves , so a bit of our space garbage dumped on them............... alien saying it is good for us & worse for them

Climate change has happened for thousands of years, maybe even millions but the last 50 years is the worst for our planet eco / extinction of animals

There is a time line of the ice ages & warming, volcanoes do have a big part to play , i will go & find it.

[Charliewool]

Originally Posted by ltd

Exactly. I think for the true believers though we're
The people who don't realise this whole global warming/climate change thing has been about nothing other than money, are the type of people I'd like to sell the harbour bridge to. You know the type, the same ******* idiots that make ads on TV with electrical appliances spewing out black balloons that float away, even though carbon dioxide is heavier than oxygen and nitrogen. They're the kind of gullible ecotard that deserve an uppercut for their arrogance, ignorance and rank stupidity.

I recently had an argument with an ecotard who was so convinced that out of all the gases that made up the atmosphere, there was 40% carbon dioxide in it. According to this *** clown, there was 20% CO2 ten years ago but now there is 40%. Dumb ***. Even once shown how many parts per million there was in the atmosphere, this idiot still wouldn't shut up despite the obvious flaw in his argument. They change tact, and then argue that man has to do something and that all the scientists agree. BS. There is no consensus. Even the IPCC has admitted there's no consensus. It's like Gaia worship is the new religion, and wind turbines are the crucifix symbol to this new religion. Speaking of which, has anyone realised just how much power those eyesores use? When the wind doesn't blow, they have to actually use power from the grid to keep them turning to prevent damage to the massive blades. Wow, what brilliant insight ecotard, what’s next? How about a broadband scheme that will bankrupt the nation and be obsolete by the time it’s done? Check.

Anyway I digress. If morons are happy to be sold ostensibly a new tax by their government who has done nothing to enrich anyone’s lives, then so be it. I'll opt out and live in Montana where even their idiotic government (get into debt, solve it by getting into further debt.... like here) has canned the carbon trading scheme.
Why? Simply because the disciples of Gaia worship like Tim Flannery, Al (two asses and five chins) Gore are held in such high esteem; that their faithful still can't look past how all their predictions have been wrong. That, and I hate being subjected to laws initiated by big government which will only impoverish the nation. It makes ordinary folk who normally go about their lives into petty criminals just to survive. That and the ethos of the ecotard; tell an unproven lie often enough until it becomes truth. Just like Bob Brown reading a Hustler magazine - doesn't make any sense.

Anyway, I'm buggering off to the pub to talk about and read about cars. I suspect several others on this post will be good little disciples of Gaia and just stay on this topic all day repeating ad nauseum the same BS lines fed to them from the church of ****ology.

Halleluyah brother, beautifully put..... Hey, wait for me, I'm coming to the bar too. (you're right.. It IS supposed to be about cars and we're wasting our breath here)

[colinl]

It is an immutable law of the universe that everything is in constant change. None of the science that I've read contradicts this. They expect cyclic weather change, what they research is events that don't fit within the cyclic change.

I still think carbon taxing is a separate issue to climate change. I can understand people believing in climate change, but not carbon taxing.

[tranquilized]

Originally Posted by Scott

Wow, you really missed the boat on that one big time - it was demonstrating that even the most powerful, influential and respected bodies in a field can be bought to suit an agenda. They knew for a very long time that smoking had been directly linked to lung cancer and premature death but they danced to the tune of the tobacco company money. More than 30 years of paid opinions....

Nope, didn't miss any boats. Its quite obvious what you were demonstrating, and I completely agree with the theory. Only thing is, you're applying it back-to-front, inside out.

[Yellow_Festiva]

Originally Posted by turboxf

is that what he was saying, who knows, he just didn't explain what he meant, he must have very small bins , we are not mind readers????????????? or are we?

Yes. Thats what he was saying. Didn't need explaining and you don't neet to be a mind reader. Yes I have small bins as I prefer my garbage taken out on a daily basis rather than siting in my place waiting for a larger bin to fill up.
Does that make sense or shall I draw a labelled diagram?

[trippytaka]

Originally Posted by irish2

The interesting thing no politicians have mentioned is carbon sinks. The earths atmosphere was formed by photosynthesising algae. With increased phosphates and nitrates present in a body of water you end up with algal blooms that consume massive quantities of carbon in very short time frames.

The byproduct of that is a reduction of oxygen in the water, killing off all life around it.

Any body of water large enough to artifically create carbon sinks with algae is too vital to the ecosystems surrounding it to risk turning it into a stangnant body of water.

[Scott]

Originally Posted by trippytaka

The byproduct of that is a reduction of oxygen in the water, killing off all life around it.

Any body of water large enough to artifically create carbon sinks with algae is too vital to the ecosystems surrounding it to risk turning it into a stangnant body of water.

We have an large, unwanted body of water here in QLD at the moment, perhaps we could turn this flood into a money spinner after all.

I'm offering a real deal on carbon offsets if anyone wants them, I'll take $5 a tonne.

[davez104]

Originally Posted by trippytaka

The byproduct of that is a reduction of oxygen in the water, killing off all life around it.

Any body of water large enough to artifically create carbon sinks with algae is too vital to the ecosystems surrounding it to risk turning it into a stangnant body of water.

Not necessarily. Micro algae and bacteria (which can also consume carbons as well as nitrates/phosphates etc) form the bottom of the food chain. If it's built up gradually the life present will increase all the way up the chain to top level predators. Could be an interesting way of converting our unwanted carbon pollution into an increased food source for us.

But sure, if you dump a whole heap of carbon into a waterway to feed algae then the results wouldn't be very good.

Cheers,
Dave.

[irish2]

Originally Posted by Work Horse

Google is your friend irish2
http://www.climatechange.gov.au/gove...deduction.aspx
http://www.land.vic.gov.au/Greenhous...2575BE001E7B2E

http://www.zerowasteaustralia.org/au...-sink-victoria

http://agric.wa.gov.au/objtwr/import...gestrategy.pdf

Those links are about forest carbon sinks. They are far slower acting than the objects that first formed our atmosphere.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...l-warming.html

[irish2]

Originally Posted by trippytaka

The byproduct of that is a reduction of oxygen in the water, killing off all life around it.

Any body of water large enough to artifically create carbon sinks with algae is too vital to the ecosystems surrounding it to risk turning it into a stangnant body of water.

Photosynthesising algae Split CO2 into C and O2 or oxygen. The carbon is used for energy production and the oxygen is expelled. Obviously putting nitrates and phosphates into a body of water is a bad thing but it happens every time it rains on the land.

[Work Horse]

Originally Posted by irish2

Photosynthesising algae Split CO2 into C and O2 or oxygen. The carbon is used for energy production and the oxygen is expelled. Obviously putting nitrates and phosphates into a body of water is a bad thing but it happens every time it rains on the land.

We already have the water that covers most of the planet creating our oxygen through photosynthesis.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by fitzwa

Well that will do me. My 2yr old daughter has better grasp of reality.

By that rationale you could use your logic on the internet to contradict anything.

I'm not a tree hugger by any stretch of the imagination but i'm open minded enough to consider that the human race is doing irreparable damage to the planet even more so in the last 50 years.

There is a fundemental difference between climate change and environmental destruction. One we have no control over, the other we are entirely responsible for. Our destruction of the environment is having an impact on the climate but is it measureable? Deforestation destroys the environment and changes local climates. I'm sure your 2 yo daughter probably recognises the difference between the two but climatologists probably dont.

The nothern hemisphere experienced it's coldest weather in decades? Our fault? Don't think so, unless we were somehow responsible for the vocanic eruption in Iceland some 6 or so months ago.......

[vztrt]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/ear...et-Office.html

2010 was coldest year since 1986 says Met Office
Last year was the coldest in Britain since 1986, according to the Met Office, although the rest of the world experienced one of the hottest years on record.

By Louise Gray, Environment Correspondent 7:00AM GMT 21 Jan 2011

Last year was the coldest in Britain since 1986, according to the Met Office, although the rest of the world experienced one of the hottest years on record.

The new statistics show that the mean temperature in 2010 was 7.96C (46.4F), the twelfth coldest on record. The coldest year in the 100 year record is 1919 and 1963, when temperatures plunged to 7.45 (45.4F) and the next coldest is 1986 when it was 7.69C (45.8F).

However the rest of the world was warmer than ever. The Met Office said that as a whole the world was 0.50 (0.9F) hotter than the long term average of 14C (57.2F), making it the second hottest on record after 1998. The US National Weather Service NOAA and Nasa, that collect their data in slightly different ways, both think 2010 is one of the hottest years on record.

Barry Grommett, of the Met Office, said a freezing start to the year in January and February and then the coldest December ever recorded brought down the temperature in the UK.

Both weather patterns were caused by a blocking pattern of high pressure in the mid atlantic that cut off mild westerly wind and made the UK and most of the rest of western Europe colder than usual.

However at the same time the rest of the world was having heatwaves. In particular it was a warm winter in Canada and Siberia and eastern mediterraean.

Greenland lost more ice than any other year while the capital of Greenland, Nuuk, had the warmest spring and summer since records began in 1873.

Mr Grommett said despite the cold year in the UK the world is warming.

“It is a natural perception to look out window and see snow and think the world cannot be possibly be warming but the UK is a small dot on the world surface and the important picture is global and in that 2010 has been a very warm year.”

[Jim Goose]

Just watching ABC news, in Europe somewhere (missed most of it) some computer was hacked and $40MILLION worth of "emissions" permits was transfered to another computer... lordie... How does one use a computer permit if they know the allocated numbers???

Mind boggles...

[Dr Jekkyl]

Interesting thread.

I would like to add some points for consideration.

The scientific process is one which does not generate facts as such. Rather it generates hypotheses and theories, some of which are supported by so much evidence that they come to be accepted as fact. The evidence is thoroughly critiqued by the process of peer-review. Why peer-review? Because only people of similar characteristics are qualified to do so. To illustrate this, a jockey does not tell an engineer how to do their job. Do they?

The objective of journalism is, or at least it should be, to inform. This is usually achieved by presenting two sides of a given issue. Both must be given equal weight provided that each are equally credible. This not however true of journalistic reporting of science because by the time scientific matters reach the mainstream media one side is in a position of being MORE credible because it is supported by a weight of evidence which has undergone the process of peer review.

The mainstream media, particularly that falling under the News Ltd banner, has however chosen on this issue to give equal weight to both sides of the argument DESPITE one side lagging seriously behind in its evidence-base and therefore its credibility. This actually sets a dangerous precedent. A media organisation with a social/political agenda constitutes an abuse of power.

Now......everyone is entitled to an opinion. Whether or not that opinion is worth listening to is another story. Those which are worth listening to are informed opinions. Fully informed opinions on climate change are however difficult to come across.The amount of evidence that needs to be appraised and understood in order to ensure that one has an informed opinion on climate change is massive. It is unlikely that anybody not working in the field has the spare time to do so is speaking from an informed position.

I highly doubt that Andrew Bolt and his News Ltd colleagues speak from an informed position. Yet they are permitted the luxury of presenting their opinion as though it were fact and as though they have all the same credentials as scientists. Furthermore these are presented in a far reaching medium that most of us trust to deliver us the facts!

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by Scaffy

If I did have any concerns about the size of my carbon footprint (which I didn't), then I certainly wouldn't be too worried about it now!

I got this in an email today. I'm sure some of you have received it already, maybe even months ago, but thought I'd share...


All of you out there across the globe who have fought so hard to tackle the hideous enemy of our planet, namely carbon emissions, you know .....that bogus god you worship of "Climate Change" or "Global Warming"......well, I feel it is necessary to inform you of some bad news. It really does pain me to have to bring you this disappointing information.

Are you sitting down?

Okay, here's the bombshell. The current volcanic eruption going on in Iceland, since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.

Of course you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - it's that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesise into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.

I know, I know.... (group hug)...it's very disheartening to realise that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of: driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kid's "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of Bali, nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your $1 light bulbs with $10 light bulbs ...well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.

The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes - FOUR DAYS ONLY by that volcano in Iceland, has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud any one time - EVERY DAY.

Oh, I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in its entire time on earth. Yes folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over one year - think about it.

Of course I shouldn't spoil this touchy-feely tree-hugging moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognised 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keep happening, despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.

I'm so sorry. And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate all your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year?.

Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you on the basis of the bogus "human-caused" climate change scenario. No mention of a Tax on all the emissions caused by Prescribed Bush Fire Burning?

The Prescribed forest burning in Victoria alone puts more c02 into the atmosphere that all power generation in Australia in one year?


Hey, isn't it interesting how they don't mention "Global Warming" any more, but just "Climate Change" - you know why? It's because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming ******** artists got caught with their pants down.

And just keep in mind that now the same government is in control, you will have an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you, that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer. It won't stop any volcanoes from erupting, that's for sure! So much for "social justice", the frequently used catch phrase used by governments to convince the voting populace that their policies will somehow benefit the not so well off!

great thread . thanks for posting

[colinl]

Scaffy, You don't put too much weight on these sorts of emails do you? They are just spam. In some ways they are a virus designed to clog up email systems. The subject matter is usually part of some sort of extreme right wing agenda. In short they are a form of viral advertising known as Astro Turfing. They are usually written in a very emotive manner, make unfounded statements and don't list references as they don't want people to research their statements.

[colinl]

I don't think you can put much worth on media stories these days, they have become too commercially bias. Certainly as one poster mentioned, some reporters have a bias in one way and will drive an agenda rather report it. Further to this is the love of a good headline to sell the story. Over recent years this has become quite popular. They find a study that says something controversial (e.g. Choclate is good for you) and they will latch onto this and report it. They won't report the study findings accurately, they just stick to the bits of the study that they think will drive people to buy the story.

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by colinl

Scaffy, You don't put too much weight on these sorts of emails do you? They are just spam. In some ways they are a virus designed to clog up email systems. The subject matter is usually part of some sort of extreme right wing agenda. In short they are a form of viral advertising known as Astro Turfing. They are usually written in a very emotive manner, make unfounded statements and don't list references as they don't want people to research their statements.

It sounds like you are referring to the 'scientific data' perported to be fact backing up climate change or global warming (or whatever it's called these days).

[flappist]

Originally Posted by colinl

Scaffy, You don't put too much weight on these sorts of emails do you? They are just spam. In some ways they are a virus designed to clog up email systems. The subject matter is usually part of some sort of extreme right wing agenda. In short they are a form of viral advertising known as Astro Turfing. They are usually written in a very emotive manner, make unfounded statements and don't list references as they don't want people to research their statements.

If that extreme right wing agenda is to combat extreme left wing nutcases making emotional unfounded statements then I cannot see a problem with it.

In fact I suspect the only people who they would upset are extreme left wing nutcases who would try to debunk it as right wing agenda.

The rest of the world tend to look at all sides realising that they all bias their data toward their agenda and tell lies so therefore judge for themselves.

Of course that tends to upset the nutcases too as they don't want people to believe anything other they what they tell them to.......