Environment problems

You guys ever considered that AGW is a load of bull and that we may have to do nothing.

Although an orderly reduction in polution is comendable and should be encouraged.

I read both sides of the argument and there are many scientist with valid points disputing AGW. People need to take a deep breath and not jump to conclusions simply based on flaky computer models that just can not predict accurately.

Scaring the population into reacting to a problem that may not exist is sensless. The scientific proof will dissmiss AGW as a farce in time, or a lot quicker if people had an open mind.

The temperature peaked in 1988 and has not increased since!

We are not all going to fry in the next 100 years.

so why are the icecaps and glasiers melting? any other theories?
astrid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok

You guys ever considered that AGW is a load of bull and that we may have to do nothing.

Although an orderly reduction in polution is comendable and should be encouraged.

I read both sides of the argument and there are many scientist with valid points disputing AGW. People need to take a deep breath and not jump to conclusions simply based on flaky computer models that just can not predict accurately.

Scaring the population into reacting to a problem that may not exist is sensless. The scientific proof will dissmiss AGW as a farce in time, or a lot quicker if people had an open mind.

The temperature peaked in 1988 and has not increased since!

We are not all going to fry in the next 100 years.

---

Which scientists, with valid peer reviewed papers, are you referring to :?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by astrid

so why are the icecaps and glasiers melting? any other theories?
astrid

---

Havnt we already had an iceage? I wonder what made the ice melt back then:rolleyes:

Common guys, scaring people shirtless about global warming is good for many businesses, pollies and media. They love it. I will keep driving my car, heat the house with wood, use plastic bags, contribute to the hole in the ozone layer ( can't help it after drinking home brew and having bangers and onions from the bbq) If the world is going to end I will make sure I go out happy and contented.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ernknot

use plastic bags

---

Like the scaremongering with plastic bags. They come in conventional and bio-degradable varieties, conventional take around 10 years to break down and bio-degradable break down within 12 months. But the big con job green ones are made from polypropylene, which is a by product of oil refining and they never ever break down. Go figure

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lignum

Havnt we already had an iceage? I wonder what made the ice melt back then:rolleyes:

---

The last major ice age ended when the isthmyth between north and south america rose up due to tectonic plate movement which disrupted the sea flow and caused it to warm as the water was heated more around the equator.

And we have had lots of ice ages, tassie had one with glaciers n all around 30 thousand years ago.

They werent really an issue 30 thousand years ago as the earth didnt have to support 6.6 billion humans as it does now. :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wongo

....Build nuclear power stations ….

---

The problem with Nuclear is that, at current usage levels, all known reserves will give us an estimated 30-70 years of power.

The question is, if we go down the nuclear path, will we

Spend the extra time we have developing a proper renewable resouce,
-or-
Will we grab the money and run?

actualy re nuclear,
Its worst than that.
They take years to build and have to be decommissioned after about 25 years.
So then the problems are
1) where to get rid of the contaminated rubble, (just look at chernoble and five mile island)
2) in 30 years, whos going to invest in another if theres only uranium left for another 30-40 years
I think the Nuclear champions are in the "take the money and run" group.
After all, they wont be around to deal with the mess will they?

I find it amusing, that the same lot who blather on about the sacrifices our grandparents generation made in the wars, to give us a free and democratic future, are usually the same ones that wont countinence much smaller sacrifices for their grandchildrens future.
(abolutly no disrespect intended to veterans)
Astrid

This is an interesting topic. Once the dollars are taken out of the equation I am of the opinion that the equation may change considerably. There is a reasonable share of misinformation attached to this particular subject which we all have to wade through. The link below is weather records for a long period of time and it has been pointed out that it must be the average of same to be of use.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~jacob/worldtp.html

Enjoy Xmas everywhere this time around, perhaps the sky will have fallen in by the time next Xmas comes around. PS: Its still well below here in winter and we still get our one month of summer every year.:U:U:U

Regards Mike

Quote:

---

You guys ever considered that AGW is a load of bull and that we may have to do nothing.

---

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI"]YouTube - Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See[/ame]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok

You guys ever considered that AGW is a load of bull and that we may have to do nothing.

---

Global warming is happening, that has been agreed by most scientist (Just like evolution), but the argument now is, is it man causing the global warming or is it a natural accurance..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silentC

Here you go, you can have a look at how the world will look after a 14m sea level rise. This is Sydney harbour but it's like Google maps, you can go anywhere in the world and select a sea level rise to a max of 14m.

http://flood.firetree.net/?ll=-33.84....2268&z=5&m=14

---

FWIW this model of ocean encroachment is based purely on topography which is very simplistic. Every metre rise in sea level creates a loss of up to 100 m of coastline due to coastal erosion. It will only be less than 100 m if there is rock in the way.

Yes there is a note to that effect on the site. The idea is just to get people thinking about what a relatively small rise in sea level will do to the coastline. He says he deliberately avoided the worst case because he didn't want it to be dismissed as alarmist. I wanted to see what it would look like at 100m but he only went to 14.

The other thing it doesn't handle is places that are already below sea level.

Quote:

---

the argument now is, is it man causing the global warming or is it a natural accurance..

---

That's the point of the video. These are all 'row arguments' which are debating something that we have no control over. What we should be debating is whether or not to try and do something about it.