Environment problems

I don't disagree that finding alternative fuel, reducing polution etc is not a good thing.

There has been too many outlandish claims made by the AGW believers to be credible. These claims completely devalue their argument. The claim that the debate is over sounds like a petulant child that is trying to protect a lie.

The very fact that the science is not conclusive means the debate is well and truly NOT OVER.

The outlandish claims of 100m sea rises etc are complete bull **** and designed to scare people into believing something that has not been proven (just like your claim of houses falling into the Swan River). Many natural events are being claimed as a result of AGW that are just not true. The argument that we should be acting NOW etc. just in case its true is also a scare tactic. So that when it doesnt happen they can claim success.

Even if the world warms by 2 deg there will be many that benefit from warming. 2 deg rise will not melt the poles. The effects of AGW are grossly over estimated to scare people into action.

If the AGW believers were more open to view and debate the science and be more realistic in there estimates etc. they would have more credibility in my book. Until then it is just a theory yet to be proved or demonstrated to be anything other than a normal natural event.

See this http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002

OK Rod, fill us in on your education and experience that makes you able to come to these decisions in the face of what other people are saying?

This is what staggers me - the whole business of climate science is so complicated that even the experts can't be sure about very much but a guy who hangs plaster for a living knows enough about it to dismiss what they say as bull ****. You obviously know something we don't, so share it with us mate.

Give us some of the hard facts and evidence that you say are lacking from the other side of the debate. Watch all of those videos by wonderingmind42 and then give us the benefit of your thoughtful and logical analysis of the holes in his argument.

Unless you can do that, you're just making outlandish claims.

Dazzler you can search the nett for yourself there are plenty out there.

The peer review system you refer to is open so open to joint back slapping etc it is virtually usless as a way to gain credibillity.

The fact is and you simply cannot deny it, is that there is not a single bit of scientific evidence that proves AGW not one paper peer reviewed or otherwise.

You can claim all you like the debate is over. It will never be over and the Scientific FACTS will win in the end.

Quote:

---

The peer review system you refer to is open so open to joint back slapping etc it is virtually usless as a way to gain credibillity.

---

Jeez, you're an expert on scientific peer review as well. You really are hiding your light under a bushel.

Silent C I don't profess to be an expert no more than yourself. I just see the AGW argument from a different view point than yourself.

No expert on peer review either. Just an obsever making a comment on what I see and read and what seems credible as opposed to what seems to be manipulated to prove a cause.

I think I have expained perfectly well above as to how my view point has been reached.

I have asked others here to prove AGW is real, they can only point to facts that don't make AGW conclusive in any way.

Irrespective of my trade or educational experience I can form a rational opinion based on information available from both sides. I consider myself open minded enough not to be swayed by outlandish claims made to pannic.

I certainly don't see the need to post heaps of links here of information that has influenced my view. Simply because no one thing has swayed me on balance I believe the AGW case is not even close to being conclusive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

With all due respect, that's a crazy point of view. Why would you base your own opinions and decisions on the arguably hypocritical behaviour of other people?

---

So if the leader of a global religion publicly flouted 5 of the 10 commandments, you would therefore not think less of that religion? Very noble of you!

Well the thing is that it's not Al Gore's religion, is it? He's just a bloke who tried to popularise some of the issues. The fact that he's a hypocrite doesn't change the message at all. If you look at him and say "well, here's this bloke telling us the world is about to end but he's doing nothing about it, so why should I" it's a bit like my kids saying, after being caught writing on the walls, "but such and such did it too" as if that makes it OK. Why would you want to base your own behaviour on someone who you clearly don't have a great deal of respect for? It makes no sense to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

Well there are swings and roundabouts on home milling.

---

Just as there are on global warming.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

If I mill a street tree outside my house and replace it with another that is relatively low CO2 emission milling. I haven't had to drive anywhere to get the timber and can use it on the spot. If I have to drive 300 km to do it then it's debatable.

---

Yes but what about that chainsaw?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

Unfortunately commercial milling is currently high CO2 emission even using plantation timber but stuff all of this comes from chainsaws. Trucks and tractors will have to be biofuel based - not hard but will cost more. Light rail may come back for plantations. I have no idea what they can do for the replacements of 2-stroke motors. Would I stop home milling if the price of petrol was $3 litre, probably not even $5 litre would be OK.

---

Biofuel? Have you seen what is happening to the world price of corn? Shot through the roof because we are using it to produce ethanol, in the mean time poor people can't afford to eat. Where's the ethics in that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

I am a little concerned that two-stroke will for political reasons be singled out quickly for "special treatment" - ie they will be banned or licenced.

---

2 strokes are already banned, at least for outboard motors, in the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

BTW, I already own a battery powered mover which for our hanky sized lawn works great.

---

Now that is really wooly thinking Bob, have you considered the overall environmental impact of that battery mower? Agreed it doesn't happen in your backyard, but those lead-acid batteries have to be produced somewhere. Bit like people telling me I shouldn't burn a wood heater, then they use split system a/c running on electricty produced from dirty brown coal in the LaTrobe Valley.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

In the long run I am not worried about home milling - if it comes down to it I will build a small rail mill running a small biofuel powered 4 stroke engine.

---

See biofuel argument above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

BTW There should be no way that it should be cheaper to import softwood from overseas than to grow our own here but that is another story.

---

Well at least we are agreed on that:2tsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

Well the thing is that it's not Al Gore's religion, is it?

---

You could have fooled me:o

And I didn't say I wouldn't or shouldn't do anything about it, I said I would have more respect for the argument..............

Quote:

---

I think I have expained perfectly well above as to how my view point has been reached.

---

Your viewpoint appears to have been reached by dismissing what the majority of world climate scientists believe as hype or bull **** designed to suck us in to some scam - the purpose of which escapes me. I just want to know either what information you have that makes you so adamant that it is a fraud, or what credentials you have that make your opinion worth listening too. You keep talking about hard evidence, so where is yours?

All others have done here is point to what the people who are paid to do this stuff for a living have had to say. Why do you feel that you know more than they do? The thing is that after the event, it's going to be too late. Saying that climate scientists just want us to spend money on the problem so that when it doesn't eventuate they can claim responsibility is just about the strangest notion I've heard.

It's pointless trying to decide whether this problem is man-made, or whether it's going to cause all of these catastrophes. By the time we work that out, it will be too late to do anything about it. While you're still running around trying to prove that climate change is a scam, or that it's not man made, or trying to disprove whatever it is that you're actually objecting to, if it's going to happen, it will already be happening already and you'll have missed the boat.

Watch those videos mate, and see if you can pick holes in them. I was sceptical about it all myself until I watch the first one. Then I realised that we're arguing about the wrong thing.

Quote:

---

I said I would have more respect for the argument

---

But it's not his argument. The people making the argument are a world away from Al Gore. He is just carrying their message. What if they are right? Are you going to say "well, I didn't accept their argument because Al Gore is a hypocrite"? Oh, well that's alright then, as long as you had a good reason.

OK silentc, so you are now a true believer, great. But what are you doing about it, or more importantly what can we all do about it?

I am not being cynical here, nor am I playing the man, as some are, but I am asking this question in all sincerity.

I think one of the most important things any government can do is help their citizens make informed decisions when buying appliances, use energy etc.

What I would like to see is a star system, like the energy and water using stars, but that address the whole environmental cost of buying and using a particular appliance.

For instance, in Bob's example above, what is the cost to the environment of producing that battery operated lawnmower, what is the cost to the environment of using it.

Would be good if we could make an informed choice on whether that Toyota Prius is really more environmentally friendly than that Jeep Cherokee, whether that solar panel actually will produce more energy in its' projected lifetime than it cost to produce and so forth.

I would venture to suggest that sales of plasma screens would plummet overnight:rolleyes:

(Oh and it would be nice if someone could calculate the tons of CO2 produced by the Bali Conference, both by the millions of airmiles to get the candidates there and back, and by the hot air produced at the conference. I bet all those candidates had their aircons going flat out, and there seemed to be a million notebooks switched on!)

I don't dismiss the view point of the scientists. I just believe they are too quick to make it a conclusive irrefutable fact.

Their attempt to put down or stifle any view contrary to AGW "The debate is over" etc is simply wrong and discredits their claims. As does making false claims as to the possible effects of AGW.

I don't have any credentials, nor do I need them to form a view based of both sides of the argument.

There are many with vested interests in both sides of the argument including the media. That does'nt make them right or wrong.

I don't need to produce anything nor prove anything to have a point of view as nor do you. However, no evidence will change your point of view I feel. Where as if someone came up with some conclusive evidence rather than opinions then I may be swayed to agree with AGW.

I just refuse to be swayed by hype and false claims.
I have watched the videos and have seen nothing yet that would change my view. My view is really very simple, I don't claim to have any irrefutable evidence to dissprove AGW I simply don't believe there is any to prove there is and that on the balance of evidence produced by both sides it is least likely warming is caused by Co2. The shrillness of the AGW lobby and their refusal to look at the science of the other side plays a large part of my forming that view.

I never said I was a true believer. I'm an agnostic - I don't believe anything :wink:

All I said was that, until I watched those videos, I was debating the wrong issue. I think he has a good point and it comes down to acceptable level of risk. As he said, you don't buy car insurance believing you will have a crash, you buy it so that IF you have a crash, you don't go broke.

So yes, I think we need to do something about it, in case they are right, because the consequences if they are right and we do nothing are too severe. As for what I'm doing, well, I've only just come around to that viewpoint, so give me time :)

G'day,

Regarding the Prius, it's all bulltish when you look at the figures of when the engine runs petrol of from the battery depending on speed and acceleration. I'll post up the stats when I find them.

Really it's a car for people who want/think to look good but the numbers don't stack up. Top Gear and others have dubunked it.

Remember the hole in the Ozone??
Well its stilll there, but it is shrinking.
We saw that CFCs were causing it some damage, so we made some changes. And Guess what? ... we still have airconditioners, refrigerators and yes we still have hairspray(not that I need it).

I'm not saying that fixing the AGW problem is as easy, but there are some very simple changes that we can make to ease the problem.

We don't have to kill our economy to tackle global warming. While some people see obstacles, I can certainly see opportunities. How you handle the challenges(or percieved challenges) ahead are depends on your own attititude towards life.

Yes the under developed countries also see benefits. Billions of dollars from developed countries paid in fines without a single drop in emissions. In fact emissions continue to rise because the UDC's are not under any pressure to reduce emissions.

Just a shift in wealth?

I wonder.

Go SilentC and BobL
Its a favorite trick of junk scientists and their devotees to introduce red herrings when the Science gets tough.
I note there have been no comments on Bobs "outing" of the backers of the junk science site.

Do we have an ostrich icon?
Astrid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok

The very fact that the science is not conclusive means the debate is well and truly NOT OVER.

---

Unfortunately very few things, including science, are ever conclusive - you can never prove anything right - you can only prove something wrong. yes the debate is not over, but my reading is we are 20 minutes into the last quarter and the team in the lead has a 40 point margin. Worst still the outcome is not a game but significant changes to how we live and 100 million+ refugees lining for a place to live.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok

The outlandish claims of 100m sea rises etc are complete bull **** and designed to scare people into believing something that has not been proven (just like your claim of houses falling into the Swan River).

---

None of the models I have seen predict a 100m rise in sea level. What is well established is when sea levels rise 1m, about 100m of land on average is lost by coastal erosion. A 1m rise in sea level will be very serious for areas like Busselton and parts of Mandurah. What I said was that some people will not pay any attention to any of this until their houses fall into the swan river.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok

Even if the world warms by 2 deg there will be many that benefit from warming. 2 deg rise will not melt the poles. The effects of AGW are grossly over estimated to scare people into action.

---

Grossly over-estimated - no - if anything they are being underestimated or suppressed by powerful interest groups. Every intermediate prediction made about global warming in the last few years has been an underestimation. The initial estimates about the life of coral reefs was that they would be OK for the next 50 years - now the latest serious research says they will collapse in 20 years. Qld tourism operators should think seriously about any long term investment this minute - not next year! BTW the link is not to some two bit news paper or a single persons opinion but one of THE worlds most respected scientific journals where a panel of experts review the articles that are published.

I have been to a conference in the US where US government scientists are not permitted to work on or discuss GW - for a start they have to call it Climate Change. At the end of the conference half a dozen senior US government scientists took me and a group of other scientists from around the world out to one of their private homes - here they read to us a prepared private statement how they deplored the US governments position on GW and how they feared for their jobs if they spoke publicly about it. Tell me again how this is the "Land of the free?" This is the level of vested interest we have to deal with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok

If the AGW believers were more open to view and debate the science and be more realistic in there estimates etc. they would have more credibility in my book. Until then it is just a theory yet to be proved or demonstrated to be anything other than a normal natural event.

---

No problem, feel free to quote any scholarly researched article from a respected peer reviewed scientific source. This is how science works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok

See this http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002

---

I could very well post a vast amount of links to global drought even right here in our own country.

What is interesting is that your link actually supports the theory of Global Warming. Something that most people don't know about global warming is that the number of extreme weather events are increased. Predictions are for more wilder weather - both colder, hotter, wetter and dryer. Cyclones will on average be wilder, snow storms will be fewer but wilder. Insurance companies working on property insurance risks are taking a very keen interest in this matter. The have actuaries working "hell for leather" on this as we speak but they won't tell us about it. If it wasn't a serious risk do you think they would bother?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Shed

Biofuel? Have you seen what is happening to the world price of corn? Shot through the roof because we are using it to produce ethanol, in the mean time poor people can't afford to eat. Where's the ethics in that?

---

Corn is far too water, fertilizer and energy hungry crop for making biofuels. You only get about twice the amount of energy out of that is put into a corn crop so its the wrong thing to use. Acacias grown in wind rows in between pastoral or grain is a much better way to go. No water needed, they survive and grow on very little natural precipitation. You get something like 4 times more energy from acacias - and you get some nice timber out of it as well.

10% of the arable land in Australia could provide all our biofuel. BUT we don't need to use arable land. We could use pastoral stations in the northern part of Australia. What we lack is infrastructure and investment incentives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok

I don't dismiss the view point of the scientists. I just believe they are too quick to make it a conclusive irrefutable fact.

---

if you call 40 years too quick then that's how long they have been discussing this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok

Their attempt to put down or stifle any view contrary to AGW "The debate is over" etc is simply wrong and discredits their claims. As does making false claims as to the possible effects of AGW.

---

Debate is never over but how long do we wait till we do anything?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok

I don't have any credentials, nor do I need them to form a view based of both sides of the argument.

---

I suppose you ay that to the surgeon as you are about to go in for an operation? Do you expect the surgeon to debate the finer points of plaster installation with you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok

There are many with vested interests in both sides of the argument including the media. That does'nt make them right or wrong.

---

Everyone has vested interests, including the scientists, but now that a whole generation of scientists have come and gone and are still saying the same thing, the record is broken for long enough. There are plenty of other problems for scientists to work on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok

I don't need to produce anything nor prove anything to have a point of view as nor do you. However, no evidence will change your point of view I feel. Where as if someone came up with some conclusive evidence rather than opinions then I may be swayed to agree with AGW.

---

Sure you can have an opinion - but as the Papua and New Guinean representative said to the USA, please stand out of the way while we attend to the urgently need environmental surgery.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok

I just refuse to be swayed by hype and false claims.

---

Me too - I have a very finely tuned scientific crap detector - I train people to develop factual crap detectors. The smelliest crap I can smell on this issue is coming firstly from the complete deniers of global warming, followed by those with interests in maintaining an excess CO2 generation status quo while the worlds sewers are backing up.:D

Well, there is no debate eh! I guess its all done and dusted (NOT).

Asdrid, there is no need whatsoever to respond to your post Bobs put down of others opinions. It would not matter who or what was put forward to argue against AGW some people will just not consider the posibility that they have it wrong nor consider other opinions.

This is exactly why I will not fall into the fold and accept what people say without proper debate or due consideration to other opinions. I note that opinions against AGW are written off as worthless by degrading the person putting it forward and not by assessing the argument and comming up with an alternative science to argue the point. This only strengthens my view people are being had by a ruse.

Like I said time will tell.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

I suppose you ay that to the surgeon as you are about to go in for an operation? Do you expect the surgeon to debate the finer points of plaster installation with you.

---

LOL got a laugh out of that one.

You obviously feel very strongly that this is all some sort of conspiracy. I find that attitude to this sort of debate strange but I suppose it can be an interesting line of enquiry. You use words like 'ruse' or 'fraud' as if some multi-national conspiracy of scientists is working together to coerce mankind into something - what, I'm not clear on.

To have an opinion like that, you must have some reason to believe it, otherwise it's just irrational. So what is it? Can you give us a brief run down on the nature of this fraud and what it is supposed to achieve.

Have you had a look at any of those videos I linked to? I suspect not. I really think you should at least take a look at this one (there are three parts about 10 minutes each):

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6A58X73GnzE"]YouTube - How It All Ends: Nature of Science (pt 1 of 3)[/ame]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok

Well, there is no debate eh! I guess its all done and dusted (NOT).

---

No - debate about whether its real or not will never be over - scientists are still looking (desperately) to see if there is way out. The debate about whether we should start to do something can continue but I don't think we can risk losing any more time and something should be done.
Every scientist would dearly love to say - hey I found this, and this and this and it points the other way. If they find it I am very keen to apply my crap detector to it and if necessary will change my mind.

I have changed my mind on such issues before. I used to be strongly anti-nuke, then after studying the issues in detail I changed my mind and became pro nuke, then, largely on economic grounds, I became less pro nuke, and now with 4th Generation reactor technology and threat of GW I'm swinging the other way again and reckon that nuclear has a significant contribution to make.

Sorry rod,
but I think it is neccessary in an intelectually honest debate to either defend an argument presented or withdraw it.
You cant say to yourself "Ill pretent I didnt present" when someone points out that there is strong reason to suspect your source is corrupt.

Astrid

:D:q

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok

The peer review system you refer to is open so open to joint back slapping etc it is virtually usless as a way to gain credibillity.

---

Peer review is not a perfect system but like democracy - it's the best thing we have.

Here is a scholarly site by the American Institute of Physics on climate change. It's a scientifically conservative site but is well set out and reasonably easy to read.

There have been many strong debates by scientists about climate forecasting models. In the early days 70's and early 80's the models were simplistic and variable. A majority pointed towards increases in global warming while a few even pointed to cooling. The various pundits chose the models that suited them and proceeded to tear into each others models for vested interest or other purposes. Gradually the most likely and realistic models surface and survived and developed, In the 90's the increasingly sophisticated models and improved computing power suddenly crystalized the direction of the models - they all started to point up. The next question was how much? Being Mr Conservatives most scientific groups chose modest changes and waited to things to happen.

In the last few years the small changes possible made within the last 10 year period by these ~15 (sometimes quite different) models have all been within the range predicted by scientists. What is concerning is that they are generally on the high side of the predictions. This could mean that the scientists are being too conservative and not providing enough warning. We could wait a bit longer but . . . . . . I better get my milling done before my CS is banned.

Sorry Silent the video did nothing for me!

Astird, SilentC, BobL, et al,

I have express my opinions here on this site in resopnse to the pro AGW argument I have not seen anything here that will change that opinion. Nor do I expect you to be swayed by my opinion as I cannot be swayed by yours.

The argument can go on forever still with neither side conceeding a point. I hope you are as wrong as I am sure you hope I am right. Then the world will be safe once again and we can stop playing God.

Cheers guys!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok

Dazzler you can search the nett for yourself there are plenty out there.

The peer review system you refer to is open so open to joint back slapping etc it is virtually usless as a way to gain credibillity.

The fact is and you simply cannot deny it, is that there is not a single bit of scientific evidence that proves AGW not one paper peer reviewed or otherwise.

You can claim all you like the debate is over. It will never be over and the Scientific FACTS will win in the end.

---

Didnt think you could point to one. So all the medicines that are not released until the results have been peer reviewed are virtually useless.

But putting aside for one minute that you are unable to back up what you say lets look at it this way.

There are a lot of very very smart scientific people in the world who believe that global warming is a fact. There may be just as many very very smart scientific people that may disagree and say its a crock.

But....we only get one chance at this. If we are wrong then there are gunna be issues. They may be big or they may be small. You and I will be okay :), maybe more of our land may become marginal for farming so a few farmers may suffer and our food goes up at coles. No biggie.

But what if you are a farmer in a country like Benin in Africa where we sponsor a young boy. Last year it was hotter than normal and much of thier crops failed. They had enough millett to get them through. What if they have three or four years or it stays at 2deg warmer for good. Would thier 3 month old be able to live if mum doesnt get enough food.

Maybe they wont have anything to eat. Maybe they all die. A wee bit harder for them than us. And if global warming is true then its you, me and all the other rich (by global standards) spoilt brats that did it to them. And just to keep it in focus, we are very much the minority ( I did hear 12% but cant recall where or if its correct but lets at least agree that we are very much the minority) and through our excesses cause the deaths of billions by changing the climate.

And truly what is the worst that can happen if the world adopts a strategy to lower carbon output. The world is a little less polluted? Is that a bad thing? Yep, there may be some inconvenience, but I doubt any of us is walking 5k a day to get a bucket of dirty water to drink so I imagine we could handle a little.

You are right that there is a lot of rubbish out there about global warming. 100m rise what crap. But a 1m rise is just as bad if you live in bangladesh or an idyllic white atoll.

This is how i came to the conclusion that on the balance of probability we are doing something to our planet that isnt natural.

The world uses about 82 million barrells of crude oil a day. So 82 million barrels at 159 litres per barrel is a total of 13 038 000 000 litres of oil that is burnt every single day. And thats not even counting coal or gas!

Where does it all go? Into the atmosphere where we live.:C

Can that be good? Hell if I fart in the lounge room the place is polluted so how does 13 billions litres a day affect the world. I aint no scientist but I dont think its a good thing.

cheers

dazzler

Quote:

---

The argument can go on forever still with neither side conceeding a point.

---

I'm not on 'a side'. You seem to have a very polarised view of things. Nobody is suggesting that we play God (how do we do that anyway?). What is being suggested is that we do something to try and help mitigate the effects (if any) of climate change.

You keep missing the point. You obviously have not taken in the guy's point in those videos. You are adamant that the 'pro-AGW argument' as you put it is bull. If you had taken in any of what he was trying to say, you would realise that you cannot say that, any more than a 'pro-AGW' person can say to you "this is what will happen". I'm sorry that you don't get that.

What you are doing is putting up a straw man argument so you can try to tear it down. You're saying "you pro-AGW people have no hard proof that global warming is anything other than a fraud". But no-one has ever said they had proof. That's the whole point. You can't prove anything, you can only disprove it. If you watched all three of those "Nature of Science" videos, you would understand that.

The whole point of the debate is, given we have a very large number of scientists and scientific organisations supporting the theory that global warming is taking place and that we can potentially do something about it, should we try. Your response is "I think it's all a fraud, so we should do nothing because nothing is going to happen". Forgive me if I put my faith in people who actually know what they are talking about and don't just base their opinions and therefore their actions on a gut feeling.

Did you watch the bit where he talks about the guy who wont admit he is wrong? That's the guy you sound like when you say "I have not seen anything here that will change that opinion. Nor do I expect you to be swayed by my opinion as I cannot be swayed by yours." Do you at least concede that you could be wrong? Or are you so sure of it that you are willing to stake your kids and grandkids futures on it? I wish I could be so certain about things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

Corn is far too water, fertilizer and energy hungry crop for making biofuels. You only get about twice the amount of energy out of that is put into a corn crop so its the wrong thing to use. Acacias grown in wind rows in between pastoral or grain is a much better way to go. No water needed, they survive and grow on very little natural precipitation. You get something like 4 times more energy from acacias - and you get some nice timber out of it as well.

10% of the arable land in Australia could provide all our biofuel. BUT we don't need to use arable land. We could use pastoral stations in the northern part of Australia. What we lack is infrastructure and investment incentives.

---

Bob, I agree with you, however that is not how ethanol is being produced is it?

Have a look at the number of relatively small ethanol plants in the US using corn/canola as feedstock.
Personally I find it obscene that people can take a foodstuff such as corn and canola and then use it to fuel their Jeep Cherokee or indeed Toyota Prius and let the poor people starve.
Your idea of using Acacias is a good one, on the surface, I haven't seen the science on it. Is it being used commercially, or is just "pie in the sky at present"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waldo

G'day,

Regarding the Prius, it's all bulltish when you look at the figures of when the engine runs petrol of from the battery depending on speed and acceleration. I'll post up the stats when I find them.

Really it's a car for people who want/think to look good but the numbers don't stack up. Top Gear and others have dubunked it.

---

That's the reason I used the Toyota Prius as an example of well meaning people trying to do something for the environment. All it really is is a very clever marketing campaign by Toyota. There is plenty of info to be found on the web that give the facts.

The point I was making is, is that is very hard for well meaning people, and I hope that is the majority, to make decisions on what to buy and what to use without proper unbiased facts to look at.

I used the star system for energy and water use as an example, it works very well, even though it may be simplistic at times. Look at sales of front loading washing machines, they have sky rocketed largely because people were made aware of water efficient they are.

If the same information was given about, say plasma screens (admittedly one of my pet hates, so I'm biased), the sales of said plasma screens would plummet.

At the end of the day most people want the best for future generations, it is when the debate gets hi-jacked by hypocritical re-cycled politicians that the waters get muddied.

I happen to believe the scientists that are telling me there is global warming taking place. I also believe the scientists that are telling me this is part of a natural cycle have a more compelling argument than the scientists that tell me that it is entirely man-made.

Even Kevin07 is not prepared to risk the Australian economy on their science, yet.


He may have (symbolically) signed Kyoto, but that is as far as he is prepared to go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Shed

Bob, I agree with you, however that is not how ethanol is being produced is it?

---

Thats how the US is producing it yea, and that is down to a lot of lobbying by the farmers to get subsidies to do it that way.

What Bob is suggesting is for how Australia could do it, as Australia doesn't currently have a biofuel market as such. The creation/growth of such a market would be driven by any govt subsidies. If the subsidies can go in the correct direction yes we could do it, but knowing how our political system works, the farmers federation would end up taking over the debate and we would end up in the same place as the US (I'm not cynical, I'm worse than that im resigned)

Quote:

---

the scientists that tell me that it is entirely man-made

---

Do these people exist? I don't think anyone would really suggest that it's an entirely man-made phenomenon. If I had to 'pick a side' I'd say that assuming there is a problem, we aren't helping at all.

Quote:

---

Even Kevin07 is not prepared to risk the Australian economy on their science, yet.

---

You want to get into the motivations of politicians now? In any case, it shouldn't be a question of what Kevin Rudd is or is not prepared to do. It's not a decision that should be made by any one person, let alone a politician.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Shed

That's the reason I used the Toyota Prius as an example of well meaning people trying to do something for the environment. All it really is is a very clever marketing campaign by Toyota. There is plenty of info to be found on the web that give the facts.

Even Kevin07 is not prepared to risk the Australian economy on their science, yet.


He may have (symbolically) signed Kyoto, but that is as far as he is prepared to go.

---

G'day Big Shed,

I agree with you, both on the Prius and Kev07.

Isn't it funny that after polling to the masses he realises that there is a cost associated to cutting emmisons down by x% - it's why the US has balked at a firm figure. (similarly too the way he isn't pulling out of Iraq yet until at least 2010. The truth of being in opposition is different to that of being in government)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mickj

We don't have to kill our economy to tackle global warming. While some people see obstacles, I can certainly see opportunities. How you handle the challenges(or percieved challenges) ahead are depends on your own attititude towards life.

---

Spot on.

There is a world of opportunity to create a happy healthy and sustainable human population into the future.

We just need to grab it with both hands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Shed

Bob, I agree with you, however that is not how ethanol is being produced is it?

Have a look at the number of relatively small ethanol plants in the US using corn/canola as feedstock.
Personally I find it obscene that people can take a foodstuff such as corn and canola and then use it to fuel their Jeep Cherokee or indeed Toyota Prius and let the poor people starve.
Your idea of using Acacias is a good one, on the surface, I haven't seen the science on it. Is it being used commercially, or is just "pie in the sky at present"?

---

I agree corn and canola have far more value as food and as feed stock and that is what it should do. We also should not be burning oil - oil has a far greater value as a chemical feedstock for making plastics etc. In 100 years time our great/great grandchildren will laugh at us for burning a substantial reservoir of our petrochemical reserves.

Acacias are the subject of a nation wide Commonwealth Research Centre Study. There are over 100 scientists and economists working on this. An advanced study has assessed the feasibility and a pilot plant is being constructed in South. West WA. There are around a dozen products that come out of the production loop depending on market forces including acacia oil (worth $9 litre to pharmaceutical industry), wood pellets, bio diesel, and nice acacia timbers. The cost of the diesel is dependent on the cost of special enzymes. which is where the research effort is a the moment.

Smart Biofuels (especially not palm oil, canola, or corn) are not THE answer but they appear to be part of the solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

Do these people exist? I don't think anyone would really suggest that it's an entirely man-made phenomenon. If I had to 'pick a side' I'd say that assuming there is a problem, we aren't helping at all.

---

Silnetc, you can't have two bob each way, if it isn't man-made, then by definition there isn't much we can do about it.
I'm not saying we shouldn't try and stop pollution and use better energy sources, but if global warming isn't man made then that isn't going to help is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

You want to get into the motivations of politicians now? In any case, it shouldn't be a question of what Kevin Rudd is or is not prepared to do. It's not a decision that should be made by any one person, let alone a politician.

---

I thought this whole debate was about the motivations of politicians!:rolleyes:

At the end of the day, they are the ones, for better or for worse, that are going to put the systems in place to fix this problem, who else, the scientists?

God help us all.


I'm not having a go at Kevin07 here, like Waldo said, he's just found out that reality doesn't match theory. It is one thing to snipe from the opposition benches, it is quite another to have to deal with the real world.

Welcome to the real world Kevin07.:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BobL

I agree corn and canola have far more value as food and as feed stock and that is what it should do. We also should not be burning oil - oil has a far greater value as a chemical feedstock for making plastics etc. In 100 years time our great/great grandchildren will laugh at us for burning a substantial reservoir of our petrochemical reserves.

Acacias are the subject of a nation wide Commonwealth Research Centre Study. There are over 100 scientists and economists working on this. An advanced study has assessed the feasibility and a pilot plant is being constructed in South. West WA. There are around a dozen products that come out of the production loop depending on market forces including acacia oil (worth $9 litre to pharmaceutical industry), wood pellets, bio diesel, and nice acacia timbers. The cost of the diesel is dependent on the cost of special enzymes. which is where the research effort is a the moment.

Smart Biofuels (especially not palm oil, canola, or corn) are not THE answer but they appear to be part of the solution.

---

Thanks for that Bob, do you have a link where I can read more about that, sounds like a very worthwhile project. Anything to produce biofuels, as long as we don't take food out of people's mouths.

Quote:

---

if it isn't man-made, then by definition there isn't much we can do about it.

---

Who told you that? There must be hundreds of examples of man-made solutions to natural problems.
If you're going to take that line, we might as well just join Rod and pretend it's not happening.

Part of the problem I think is that people believe we can stop a natural process - or think that's what people want to try to do. I don't think that's what is being suggested. We can do things to stop making it worse. We may even reverse things a little. But I think most of the effort needs to go into preparing for what's to come, not trying to stop it, because I don't know if we can.

But I am delving a little bit into an area that I should stay away from, because as I've tried to point out to Rod, the whole field is so complicated that there's no way you or I can be across and understand all of the issues and the science involved. I really do believe it is a matter of trusting the scientific community as a whole to come up with solutions. Where else are you going to put your faith?

If they are lying to us for some so far undisclosed motive, well what can we do. The alternative is to do nothing just in case they are lying. But what if they're not?