Environment problems

[rod@plasterbrok]

SilentC, Dazzler, Woodbe etc.

I am now about done I have explained my views as clear as I know how.

Like I said I do not expect you to agree with them. SilentC even though you say you can't understand why I have the view I do, I would say, I do understand why you and many others have your view.

What is important here is that there are opposing views even if you don't agree?

As custodians of the future we all must be held accountable to future generations who indeed will know the facts. That accountability is not just enviromental but econonomic, living standards, political stability and many others.

It is important that we act responsibly. That responsibility means correct interpretation on balance of the scientific evidence available and act accordingly. Its my view that I really dont see that happening. I see a lot of contradictory evidence where one side of that evidece is being shoved under the mat based on weight of opinion largely from many non scientists (the hype). Considering the public opinion that has been generated, it is a brave scientist that puts his hand up and says "hang on a minute", fortunately they are out there and growing.

I don't disagree with taking steps to improve the environment, cut polution and find better fuels. What I have exception to is the radical pace and urgency that is placed on doing so, based on all the arguments in the posts above and the damage that can do. The potential is here for massive political and inter country divide as one acts where another does not, such is the imbedded beliefs and lack of transparency to both sides of the scientific quandary.

The right descisions will be made in the long run I am sure.

You should hope like hell I am right don't you think?

I certainly hope like hell you are wrong!!!

[rod@plasterbrok]

SilentC,

I do fully support the fact that GW in a natural event and that we should be prepared for any real changes that may bring.

Given the temps have risen .07 deg in one hundred years and no evidence of a rapid increase as yet, we need not pannic about it.

BTW nice twist

I believe that for the want of further evidence that my opinion is the right one to have. That does not mean that my opinion is correct, it means that I believe it to be.

You said "I do not believe that despite all my reading that I might have it wrong". This is different to what you have just said. You are now saying that you believe your opinion to be the right one to have given the available evidence (as assessed by you as a lay person), but you are not asserting that your opinion is correct. So reading between the lines, you concede that it is possible you are wrong. There is a probability, no matter how small (in your view), that global warming is going to be a major problem. Will you concede that much?

Considering I was simply expanding on my views to counter your previous twist confirming how I see it. My consessions are quite clear in my opinion as expressed.

[woodbe]

Considering the public opinion that has been generated, it is a brave scientist that puts his hand up and says "hang on a minute", fortunately they are out there and growing.

Rod, that is exactly the position of the minority proGW scientists a few short years ago.

What we have witnessed is a complete about-face by the scientific community and the community in general. That alone should be enough for most people to start paying attention.

The scientists arguing against GW are the leftovers of the old guard, not the arriving new guard. There are plenty of $$ reasons why they are becoming more vocal.

woodbe.

[Sebastiaan56]

I accept that there is a distinct possibility that things might take a turn for the worst in my lifetime.

I agree Rod, that future generations will judge us for better or worse. I also agree with C in that environmentally based conflicts are predicted and mass displacement is probably inevitable, Im glad I live on an island in one nation. It is critical that we make the correct decisions because the balance of probability is that they will. I also agree that there is a lot of unsubstantiated hype on both sides. But lets not let creationists tell us what is going on.

There is only one world forum, it has to be the mediating authority and it has set up a group of the best and brightest it can find to advise it. This is only what smart leaders do as we cant all know everything. When Bush steps down the next US president will have a much different line on the whole issue. I expect a lot of the "contrarian" polemic to be disbanded as the funding returns to science in the US.

I think the scientific process is working in bodies like the IPCC the revision of the NASA climate figures is another example. BTW when revised the decade was the second hottest on record by 0.2C so that argument is at best pedantry.

Sebastiaan

[silentC]

I certainly hope like hell you are wrong!!!

The irony is, I can't be wrong because I'm not really saying anything at all

The only thing I can actually be wrong about is whether or not we should take a risk management approach. Given that I can't know who is right and who is wrong (and neither can you, despite what you say) and given that an awful lot of people and organisations in a position to make educated observations say there is a problem, despite the fact that a lot of the same say there is no problem, I can't see how we can ignore the warnings and do nothing.

An example was given: there was outrage in the US when it was revealed that the FBI had all the information necessary to stop the 911 attacks - yet no-one managed to connect the dots. Imagine if, in 20 years time some of this stuff actually does happen, when people look back at this debate and nothing was done because no-one could agree whether there really was going to be a problem. How will we feel (those of us who are still around). If only we'd done something while there was still time.

I admit there is every chance that it will never happen - we just don't know. So the question remains, do we ignore the warnings because our gut feel is that nothing is going to happen? Or do we heed them just in case they are right. Seems like an easy decision to me.

I do understand why you have the views you do. I totally understand. I know exactly where you're at. You're no fool, and neither am I. I can see we're not going to get anywhere, but even if it makes you challenge your views on it, well that's something. If it makes them stronger, well and good. That's what it's all about. I'm just not so certain about things as you seem to be. It's so complex and the deeper you dig, the more complex it gets. The whole notion of what the Earth is, where we are and how we came to be here is so mind-bogglingly complex I can't even begin to understand it. Things are connected and interrelated in ways we will probably never understand. Someone is raising the alarm and I think it needs to be acted on, that's all.

[Gingermick]

[q9]

It also seems to me that taking this line of "if there weren't so many ridiculous claims being made, I'd be more inclined to believe it" is illogical.

This is an interesting point. Did you know, that for around 15-20 years or so, the degradation of the ozone layer was ignored because the numbers collected by the satellites were thought to be in error?

In fact, it turned out that the readings were actually quite accurate, just poorly interpreted because they were thought "ridiculous" and thus ignored.

[rod@plasterbrok]

No problem with that Silent C.

We just need to act sensibly, in a way that is not going to create economic storms and pannic one nation against another when one does not live up to expectations.

I guess what I am about is that everyone should take a cold shower so to speak. Somewhere in between what is "demanded action" and the "do nothing" approach is the right way to go. Until it is proven that C02 is the actual cause of the .7 deg increase thus far and that further increases have been observed.

If in fact AGW is true and the only way to combat it is to reduce emssions, then the only answer to that is for the world to have a NETT reduction in emissions.

Having developed countries reduce their emissions by 60% whilst the combined increase in the under developed countries rise by an amount that gives the world a nett increase in emissions is preposterous. The only result from that is a transfer in prosperity.

This is how Kyoto will pan out with the direction it is heading. No wonder Rudd is hanging back and the US flatly refused to play ball. Buying a carbon credit does not reduces carbon!

[MICKYG]

Hi all,

There would be many areas which could be improved but it is unlikely that every one would agree, I have always been conservative with most matters but find a lot of hypocrisy attached to this particular subject.

How about some constructive ideas and improvements which communities could put into place. This is an area where everyone is entitled to an opinion and it should stay that way.

Regards Mike

[rod@plasterbrok]

G9 that does not make the ridiculous claims by some proponents of AGW correct.

Many of their claims have been watered down by the IPPC itself.

11 of the claims by Gore were disputed in court and proved baseless.

Just look at the houses falling into the swan river claim made here today! How can that be anything but a ploy to incite fear or irrational action or belief.

There is no basis even by the IPPC's worst case scenario for that claim to have any credibility.

Having to sort through that sort of rubbish to find the facts simply muddies the water.

[q9]

I think you are hitting on something very important. The amount of deliberate misinformation being fed through, only serves to create a feeling of apathy and "This is BS" among the general population. Which leads to inaction, and more of the same.

I attended a conference last month in which a couple of industry leaders (agriculture), scientists, and a member of a Banking organisation no less, all were very clear - whatever your views, something is happening that we don't fully understand so we are best to deal with it, than not.

My understanding of the carbon credits scheme is that it reduces the amount of carbon credits by a certain amount each year, which gives the desired overall reduction. So if a country can't afford the technology to reduce carbon, they buy more credits, and countries that can afford to develop the technology can sell their credits. It is the application of simple economic principles of supply and demand to the problem. At some point the credits will be in very short supply, and therefore expensive, probably more expensive than the alternatives, thereby creating the incentive to move to better technologies.

To me, the downsides to acting on it early, regardless of whether you "believe" in it or not, are far smaller than the downsides to inaction.

[rod@plasterbrok]

G9 I hear what you are saying but really what action are you talking about.

The, "we demand drastic action now", type or, "we should be looking for alternatives" type, or maybe something in between.

Have you considered the results of the action you propose?

Like, what net effect will it have on the emissions world wide V's the cost?

What nett effect will it have on global temperatures next year next decade etc?

Will the action Australia takes be real and cut into the essense of AGW or by symbollic?

No action, given the world wide beliefs, would simply not be acceptable regardless of the futility, cost, or reality of AGW. This I agree.

[Greg Ward]

My facetious note of around 50 posts ago needs to resurface.

I find it extremely interesting (statistically speaking), that now that the Howard Govt has gone, that all the left wing in our nation are suffering from deprivation syndrome.

Lord only knows, they need something to whinge about, that's why they exist..... and they appear to be struggling to find a new cause for their incipient need to worry.

So now we've got one. GW to their rescue.

There were 5000 or 15000 at Bali, all at 5 ***** hotels, all there for a week or so, all there with the sole aim to save the planet. Great work if you can get it

But..... What if it doesn't wish to be saved? Perhaps Gaia is sick of us and just wishes to move on.

In around 1400AD (sorry CE), there was a mini ice age and many died as crops failed across Europe.

300 years before that, as previously noted by others, sea ice melted around the north pole which allowed settlement in Greenland and Iceland and precipitated the viking scourge as they were able to row around Europe unhindered by serious winters.

Only 12000 years ago, Sydney Harbour was a river system, the coastal plain extended 15km east from Sydney and you could walk to Tassie and New Guinea. North America and central Europe were covered with ice sheets, the melting of which provided the grain bowls which currently provide much of our current food.

Now that was serious GW. Was it a positive for the planet or negative? It was certainly a positive for Humans, but as for the planet....I'd suggest neither..... It was normal.

So why are we so fearful of change? What are the positives THIS TIME if GW does indeed occur? There are areas where a warmer climate will be greatly beneficial, but we don't go there, we're too worried about the barrier reef and a few islands. I'd suggest that as the reef of the world survived a 300 feet sea leve rise only 12000 years ago, that they can withstand a few inches over the next 50 years or so.

I'm just happy that we have a subject to fill the vacuum in the minds of those who miss the Howard Government, they have to have something to fill their time.

Taking a long term view, It will all be academic in 5 billion years or so when the sun becomes a red giant.

Regards


Greg

[q9]

Taking a long term view, It will all be academic in 5 billion years or so when the sun becomes a red giant.

Given that deep, insightful logic, murder should no longer be a crime. After all, in 5 billion years he'd have been dead anyway Your Honour

Have you considered the results of the action you propose?

Um, thanks, but it wasn't my idea! But I can see the rationale behind it. Create a carbon trading economy which favours those with the ability to reduce their emissions using a technological solution and in time reduce the credits available. This then gives the incentive for all to adopt the technical solutions, and given the nature of economics, the more competition for selling the technical solutions, the cheaper those solutions will become.

What it's ultimately about is agreeing that something should be done, and laying out the framework to make it happen. No more, no less.

[Greg Ward]

In time it will be revealed that carbon credit scheme(s) will be one of the greatest 'con's ever perpetrated since flared jeans and tulip bulbs.

Industry players and financial arbitragers will make a mint and the costs will be passed along totally....... to whom?????

The consumer and the general public of course, who will pay more for anything and everything produced.

There will be a huge profits made (by some) in 'investment' schemes to grow timber (for credits), and huge losses by investors.

There will be wild enthusiasm as more wind farms pollute out coastlines and more yellow bellied parrots fall from the sky.

What an exciting time we will have.

Greg