Comments

<Back to Article

  1. While I agree that it has always made sense to do what we can to reduce pollution of all kinds. Nothing should prevent us from doing what we can to stop this, however the fact that this period of warming may not be exclusively to do with the emmissions from man gets practically no press.

    This may well be that people think that scare tactics are the best way to get people to change their ways.  Bransons’ idea of offering rewards for innovations to reduce the co2 count is a better way to go.

    Acurate weather has only really been kept for a hundred years if that.  Surely we cannot ignore the variables that have affected the weather over the millenia.  To discount the possibility of an oscillation of the sun is ridiculous, it is the single biggest factor in the earths climate. 

    By the way, to call the earth a finite area sounds convincing but it alludes to the situation that we have nothing left to learn, this kind of scientific hubris is an indicator of a type of endgame complacency.  Keeping in mind that many of the stand out scientists and scientific discoveries over the ages have been made against the common consensous.

    I for one remain unconvinced of the doomsday rhetoric. We will adjust and we will continue to cause ourselves and the planet and its species some damage, but we are part of the organic make up. The panic, the Al Goreism of all the hyperbole and endless modelling and predictions, this to me is a social contagion passed through the fibre optic digital medium, itself about as old as the greenhouse debate.  The pixels ate Rome.

    Posted by John Herbert  on  14/02/07  at  10:31 AM
  2. Al Gore has really let himself go

    Posted by Rod Bowle  on  14/02/07  at  02:07 PM
  3. Thanks for this, Peter. I, too, have been astounded by the speed with which global warming has become the major issue, after it has been ignored or relegated to the loopy fringe for so long.
    It is not as if any of this stuff is really new - I recall being aware of these issues as an art student in 1969. Many of the predictions made then are starting to come to pass and it seems as if the warming process has unstoppable momentum, because we should have been dealing with it 30 years ago.
    Astonishingly, there still seem to be people in influential positions (politicians etc) who regard global warming as a “greenie plot” or something similar.
    We are, however, all in the same boat, and the denyers will not be immune to the effects of global warming, along with the rest of us. Little comfort in that, though.
    The prime minister last week acknowledged that a few degrees more warmth would make things “uncomfortable” in some parts of Australia - he just does not seem to get it - the slight rise in temperature is the least effect - how this rise causes roll-on effects in other systems is what we need to be most concerned about. Maybe he doesn’t care about his grandchildren (has he got any?) - he’s certainly being very shortsighted on this issue, unlike his New Zealand counterpart, who, I noticed in the newspaper today, has pledged that New Zealand will lead the world in seeking solutions. Makes our PM look like the dweeb he is.

    Posted by Anne Johnston  on  14/02/07  at  04:32 PM
  4. What’s really annoying is that we have a lot of the technological solutions and the demand-management type solutions already.  We just need the will to apply them.

    If John Herbert doesn’t agree with John Howard and 99% of the world’s climate experts, that’s his problem.  The point is not so much whether humans have caused the problem as whether humans can fix it.  Who else are we going to call on?  Allah?  Martians?  The carbon fairies?

    Encouraging that the NSW coalminers’ union is prepared to accept a tax on coal with the attendant job losses if there is a reasonable compensation package.

    The Australian economy will suffer if we don’t get our act together because there will be a drop in demand for coal, no increase in demand for uranium, and China still won’t import our cars because they are too polluting.

    If there is one thing sadder than a country turned into a quarry, it’s a country turned into an abandoned quarry.

    Tim Thorne

    Posted by Justa Bloke  on  15/02/07  at  10:35 AM
  5. In case some haven’t seen it, this week’s cover article on New Scientist is ‘Goodbye Cool World: Why our future will be hotter than what we’ve been told’.

    The articles examine what has been left out, or sidelined, in the recent IPCC report. For example, Bob Corell, chairman of the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment panel (not part of the IPCC) says that any IPCC prediction of a sea level rise of less than one metre ‘would not be a fair reflection of what we know’.

    On the web, goto:
    http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11090
    which is an interesting analysis of future trends. From there you can visit a few more of the New Scientist’s articles on the topic.

    Posted by Jon Sumby  on  15/02/07  at  01:42 PM
  6. “....the fact that this period of warming may not be exclusively to do with the emmissions from man gets practically no press.”  Gee, I bet the oil and coal industries, which have paid a fortune for press coverage pushing the line that the jury’s still out would be pretty cross that their message has not been visible! What trash! For so long that was the majority view which has only recently been shamed into retreat.

    It seems fairly obvious that most people who slander Al Gore have not actually seen “An Inconvenient Truth” - http://torrents.thepiratebay.org/hashtorrent/3606805.torrent/an_inconvenient_truth.avi.3606805.TPB.torrent (for those who missed it in the theatres).

    One of the most telling points Gore makes is that, for hundreds of thousands of years (~600k if I remember correctly), there has been a direct correlation between atmospheric CO2 levels and global temperatures. Never during that time have CO2 levels been as high as they are now, let alone as they will be during our children’s lifetime. The consequences are inevitable and not all the sophistry in the universe will change that fact.

    “....Accurate weather has only really been kept for a hundred years if that.” Unfortunately and inconveniently, ice cores going back hundreds of thousands of years do provide accurate weather / atmospheric records. They show the upward spiral of atmospheric CO2.

    Actually Gore’s message is not “....doomsday rhetoric” as it is characterised by those who have not seen the film. His point is that solutions can be found provided we do not wilfully ignore reality.

    Posted by old_devil  on  15/02/07  at  02:39 PM
  7. Mr Sumby,

    The IPCC hasn’t recently published a report.  Perversely, all they have recently published a summary of a report that won’t be completed and released for months (until the cast of 1000s can agree on what it will say)!  Beat that for arse about face!

    Posted by rat  on  15/02/07  at  04:43 PM
  8. The report hasn’t been released because the authors have to review it to ensure it agrees with the recently published political document.

    Great scientific research.

    The new ice-age doomsayers of the 60’s/70’s have been replaced by the shrilling zealots preaching the new religion of man made global warming - oops, climate change.

    And, in the view of religious fanatics, anyone who expresses a contrary opinion is considered a heretic.

    Posted by Barking Toad  on  16/02/07  at  07:08 AM
  9. Rat, on the 2nd of Feb the IPCC released the report Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis, which assesses the current scientific knowledge of the natural and human drivers of climate change, observed changes in climate, the ability of science to attribute changes to different causes, and projections for future climate change.

    But don’t worry, the other two volumes are on the way, when they are published you can chew them into fragments, make a nest and protect yourself against the coming ice age…

    barking toad, as far as I know, the 1970s ice age thing was based on a paper published in Science that was retracted within a year when the author discovered errors in his calculations. Between times it was put into the media by a small article in Newsweek and generated some media excitement. Meanwhile, global cooling was debated in the scientific community and discarded.

    Global warming, however, was first proposed in 1979 and has been debated and examined at length in the scientific community and is accepted. There are hundreds of research papers that examine and accept global warming and there are hundreds of clear observations of warming. The latest is that the oceans have warmed to a 3 km depth, not a trivial thing that will go away when the ‘hysteria’ disappears.

    You are behind the times: Fred Singer, perhaps the most widely known oil-industry funded climate change sceptic, is now a convert. What! Yes, indeed, he’s recently put out an article saying that climate change is ‘unstoppable’.

    Now why would a sceptic who is funded by the oil industry start saying that global warming is unstoppable? Aha!... in his article he says that global warming is real and is a natural event therefore we should not reduce the use of oil or coal as this will damage the ‘global economy’ (read ‘oil industry profits’) and reduce our ability to adapt to this ‘natural’ change.

    Glad to know the oil industry now believes global warming is real and that the solution is to burn more oil!

    Posted by Jon Sumby  on  16/02/07  at  09:03 AM
  10. I’m all for heretics, BT.  The world’s a much better place because of them.

    You can express all the opinions you like, and so can I, but none of our opinions is going to change the facts.

    How do you suggest we reduce the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

    Posted by Justa Bloke  on  16/02/07  at  11:08 AM
  11. The CO2 buildup in the atmosphere is but one of many crises now converging.  We need to keep tabs on each one.  TV news and newspapers should be providing regular updates on catastrophic or worrying trends to ensure public awareness and ACTION.  Instead they generally focus on immediate and novel events.

    So what are these trends?

    1. We’re running out of natural resources. oil, clean water, fertile soil, certain minerals..

    2. Fish stocks are set to collapse in 50 years on current trends.
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200611/s1780209.htm

    3. Our financial and capital markets are out of control.

    4. There is a world wide crisis of overproduction in many goods. Meaning that natural capital is being used up to produce these goods faster than it can be replaced (if it can be replaced at all) AND there individuals are finding it harder to afford these products due to lower wages and less employment.

    5. Worrying world trade imbalances have emerged.

    6. World population is now beyond sustainable levels (possibly even with more sustainable lifestyles).

    7.  Developing countries are now being more successful at imitating Western industrial society’s wasteful patterns.

    8.  Infectious and chronic diseases in the human populations are rising dramatically across the globe.

    9.  Extinction of whole species is now occuring on average every 6 hours.

    10.  Inequality of wealth across the globe is absolutely extraordinary and getting worse.

    11.  Increasing urbanisation with associated increasing decay and poverty in rural areas.

    12.  Global pollution is now dramatically affecting life on the planet. 

    13.  The rate of change on the planet is not being reflected in changes to our social/economic institutions.

    14.  Preemptive wars have now begun to ensure access to increasingly diminishing resources.

    Our SOCIETY needs to change. Now.

    Posted by Brenda Rosser  on  16/02/07  at  08:05 PM
  12. Al Gore says in his climate presentation (as I do in mine) that people retreating into silent denial is the last thing we need. We must engage with each other on this topic. Public debate will help give us the strength to do what’s needed, which is why it’s so good to see this discussion - including the wider environmental and social issues raised by Brenda.

    People have been fed mixed messages about climate change because it’s an enormous subject which even the best scientists can get wrong. The scientific fraternity has correcting mechanisms that eventually sort out the wrong turns, but where they’ve received publicity in popular media the corrections can get overlooked.

    Hence all the misconceptions about scientific opinion about global warming. The remarkable thing about the climate debate is the very high level of consensus that this is happening, and happening at a rate that’s at the top end of expectations. That is seriously alarming.

    It takes a long time for science to mull over and resolve questions as complex as climate change. In 1896 Arrhenius (Swedish chemist, Nobel Prize winner) speculated that human-produced atmospheric carbon would cause warming. In 1938 Callendar (Engish amateur scientist) found evidence that this was already happening. In the 1950s Revelle and Suess found that the oceans weren’t as effective in absorbing atmospheric carbon as we’d thought, and from 1959 Revelle and Keeling began the atmospheric analysis that showed rising carbon dioxide levels.

    So global warming isn’t a new issue at all. What’s new is that scientists at large and more recently the wider public have finally ‘got it’. Things are moving a little faster, like the glaciers of Greenland and Antarctica. Now to steady the ship and change course.

    Posted by Peter Boyer  on  17/02/07  at  09:08 AM
  13. We know that you are not an optimist Brenda.  A neo-Malthusean pessimist would be an accurate description and you are fully entitled to your beliefs.  It is not an opinion that is rare in our society at all.

    I suppose I could argue each and every one of your points, but that would be tiresome and you would just respond with another numbered response.  I will leave you with the viewpoint of an optimist though. 

    There are more people well off with enough to eat and a roof over their heads(I assume you have these luxuries) today than their has ever been collectively in the history of the world.  The chances of such well off people with spare time on time on hands due to their relative wealth to come up with solutions to problesm has never been higher.  To quote a Morgan Freeman in ‘the shawshank redemption’, “get busy living or get busy dieing”

    Posted by John Herbert  on  17/02/07  at  10:27 AM
  14. It’s fairly well know that Kilamanjaro, ‘The Shining Mountain’, will lose it’s famous snowcap (see NASA photo), but the loss of Andean glaciers is a bit more far reaching. These glaciers are the only source of water for numerous Peruvian rivers and reduced water will affect thousands of people and affect ecosystems across the region. See: BBC News

    We are in the process of desertification,” stressed Ms Iturregui, head of the Climate Change Unit of Peru’s National Council for the Environment.


    Major glaciers could vanish in five years, experts say

    Climate researchers have told a major gathering of scientists in San Francisco global warming is rapidly shrinking some of the most important glaciers in tropical mountain ranges.

    One glacier in Peru could lose half its mass in the next 12 months and be gone entirely in five years.

    The researchers say it is the clearest evidence yet of climate change.

    Professor Lonnie Thompson, who has studied the glacier in Peru, says the world is certain to lose a number of important ice masses.

    “No matter what we do, we’re going to lose the glaciers on Kilimanjaro, we’re going to lose the lower elevation glaciers in the Andes,” he said.

    “The question is, how far down this road do we go before there’s any meaningful action to reduce emissions? What does the evidence have to be?

    “Unfortunately I think as human beings, it doesn’t matter really what it is, but we only deal well with crisis.”

    Meanwhile US scientists say world temperatures in January were the highest ever recorded for that month of the year.

    “The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was the highest for any January on record,” scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Climate Data Centre said.

    The combined global land and ocean surface temperature was 0.85 degrees Celsius warmer than the 20th Century average of 12 degrees for January.

    - ABC/AFP Saturday, February 17, 2007.

    Posted by Jon Sumby  on  17/02/07  at  11:29 AM
  15. John Herbert wrote: “I suppose I could argue each and every one of your points, but that would be tiresome..”

    Clearly that is your philosophy here because we haven’t ever read any argument from you on anything in this forum.

    You are overloaded with opinion, Mr Herbert, but your ability to think critically appears to be badly impaired.

    We have lots of impending crises.  That doesn’t mean we have no hope.  But certainly this will be the case if we don’t use our brains and begin now to seriously search for the reasons these problems came about.

    I implore you and others such as Tomas and co to spend less time expressing opinions and more time presenting the research and probability logic behind your assertions.  Because it looks very much like you folks just don’t bother to study up on topics before writing in this forum.

    Posted by Brenda Rosser  on  18/02/07  at  09:28 AM
  16. Brenda - not so. I have discussed some of the data at http://oldtt.pixelkey.biz/index.php/weblog/comments/global-warming1/. Felt no need to repeat myself. The anthropogenic hypothesis of global warming is one experiment we are living through. Probably wont have a firm answer for some decades. My view is that is a reasonable hypothesis, but other explanations of recent warming are worth entertaining as well. Anthropogenic causes of warming is certainly the dominant paradigm, I await further data as it emerges.

    Posted by Tomas  on  18/02/07  at  11:40 AM
  17. Tomas, I went to the link you provided above and spent some considerable time reading what you and others have written there re the debate on global warming.

    It is true that you have backed your opinions with argument.  However, despite being asked repeatedly by other readers to provide evidence behind your argument you consistently fail to do so.

    One of your major objections is that you believe that the scientific method has been breached by scientists on both sides.  But you don’t tell anyone precisely what the ‘scientific method’ entails in relation to the dealing with ‘uncertainty’.  You also believe that - quoting directly from one of your posts - “activists .. are as unlikely to be as balanced on this issue as the various industry groups. .”

    That’s quite an incredible statement to make given that ‘industry groups’ are powerful vested interest bodies!

    So, if you want to be taken seriously you need to improve your argument to cover these conspicous absences in your logic and argument.  Given your claimed scientific background readers must be wondering why you have left this critical stuff out of your postings.

    B Rosser
    http://www.geocities.com/rosserbj

    Posted by Brenda Rosser  on  18/02/07  at  04:06 PM
  18. Tomas, as I’ve said elsewhere, whether humans are the cause is of less importance than whether (and how) humans can solve the associated problems.

    Or do you, too, believe in the carbon fairies?

    Posted by Justa Bloke  on  18/02/07  at  06:40 PM
  19. Gee it looks like ol’ Tomas there has done some research, I could do but that would be tiresome, oh I said that before. 

    Seems to me the last person I would be looking to in a crisis is someone choc full of conspiracies that belies a deep distrust in much human activity to such an extent that they can’t really tell up from down.

    I can send you all the links in the world and paraphrase a number of learned thinkers that are more inclined to my way of thinking, its just not really my style Brenda.  I’m more of an antogaonist of the bourghoise left.  The most dogmatic and compromised people on the planet, yet influential to some degree which I would prefer to see diminished..  I’m sorry to upset your scholarly ideal.

    Posted by John Herbert  on  18/02/07  at  07:59 PM
  20. (16)  seems as though tomas would have us all wait ,and wait and wait and wait until he and his fellow sceptics are thoroughly convinced ! however what then ! it will be far too late !  obviously individuals such as these care “not one jot” for coming generations as do most of the “ME” generation
              well ! i have news for them all,  believe it or not the earth is a sphere ! not flat !
    and a sphere is around thing similar to a Ball got the picture ?
                        d.d.

    Posted by DON DAVEY  on  19/02/07  at  07:03 AM
  21. In 1976, the American physicist Amory Lovins wrote:

    “The commitment to a long-term coal economy many times the scale of today’s makes the doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration early in the next century virtually unavoidable, with the prospect then or soon thereafter of substantial and perhaps irreversible changes in global climate. Only the exact date of such changes is in question.” (Foreign Affairs, October 1976, page 67).

    Lovins went on to detail why what he called ‘hard’ energy options (mainly large-scale, centralised thermal and nuclear generation) needed urgently to be replaced with ‘soft’ options (smaller-scale, decentralised options focusing on greater efficiency, lifestyle changes and renewable energy generation).

    Lovins was reflecting the views of a growing group of concerned environmental scientists. Unfortunately his views held no sway in the corridors of power - we continued on our merry way, and his gloomy predictions are now looking right on the money.

    It’s hard to admit, even to oneself, that all the material benefits of our modern era have come at such a price. It’s not surprising that many of us will look for ‘evidence’ that says it’s really all right, we don’t have to change anything, that Nature or God or Something will take care of us.

    But as each year passes, this state of mind looks more and more like a fantasy. We have to stop clinging to bogus ‘facts’ and admit that we’ve got work to do. And get on and do it.

    Posted by Peter Boyer  on  19/02/07  at  07:56 AM
  22. Mr Herbert, you’ve certainly made your position clear.  You want to express your biased opinion without the obligation of exhibiting evidence of research or critical thought.  Given that you’ve demanded the latter from others this effectively makes you a blathering hypocrit.

    Here’s John Herbert in action on the Tasmanian Times:

    “Fascism is fire that is fuelled by failure, failure of societal systems.  If the green movement gets too strong, ya never know. ..”

    “Lots of ancient recycled B.S.”

    “fanatics beating an empty drum pretty loud.  This really is getting ugly.  The status quo is against you nutjobs.”

    “Snide, smug lefties blowing wind on each others backsides. “

    “If you can’t take criticism, stay at home.”

    “sorry to disappoint your frenzy folks.”

    “Save your pseudo facts as well for someone who will believe them.”

    “You might want to take note of that as an empirical fact as this formulates the basis of truth.  A concept that may enlighten you.”

    “The kind of pap I hear on this site pertaining to underhanded western activities is recess storytime compared to what I was privvy to over there in the lions den of insurrectionis lefty fantasisers. “

    “Personally I think this whole extremeist B.S. has a lot to do with the opposite or contrdictory gender and lack of relation thereof.  If you can’t look at women, can’t go out with women and believe ultimately they are just breeding vessels no wonder you might be talked into killing youself and a lot of other people who seem to be gettting a lot of action that you yourself are forbade from having. Leonard Cohnen was right “I’ve seen the future, and its murder”

    “but hey you can believe what you want to believe and make it sound all spooky so people go oohh wow that would be BBAAADDD! oh no!  Against even a medium sized intellect it is however called, er….. blather”

    You wouldn’t be ‘Herbert Johnson’,also, would you?

    Posted by Brenda Rosser  on  19/02/07  at  08:44 AM
  23. Brenda - if I could be bothered, which I am not, I could put together a review of relevant scientific literature that both supports or doesn’t support anthropogenic hypotheses on global warming. But that would be tedious as I am sure the ‘selective’ readers out there wouldn’t be swayed by any arguments around the uncertainty of climate science, particularly on modeling. It’s a sad reality of modern globalized life that there are so many pressing, important contemporary scientific issues that a largely uneducated populace feels it has a right to distort and use for social, political or cultural reasons. It amuses me in a sad way that people have become so preoccupied with ‘causes’ such as global warming, that they ‘forget’ about much more pressing issues such as social equality, global poverty, malnutrition in children, substance abuse etc etc. This is why my charitable dollar goes into human development causes and not crazy-arse green hypocritical groups buying up carbon credits to feel better about their own destructive behaviour.

    Posted by Tomas  on  19/02/07  at  12:04 PM
  24. Well, Tomas, you’ve certainly responded true-to-form.  The scientific objectivity of your postings is just mind-blowing.  Where did you get your science degree?

    Tomas said: “It amuses me in a sad way that people have become so preoccupied with ‘causes’ such as global warming, that they ‘forget’ about much more pressing issues such as social equality, global poverty, malnutrition in children, substance abuse etc etc..”

    Actually the cause of global warming (90% certainty) is man’s attitude and actions.  Your continued posting on this forum might actually be very enlightening to sensible readers because your words exhibit all of the ‘qualities’ of mind that caused these multiple crises to begin with.  The causes of global warming, world poverty, social inequality etc etc are:

    - a laziness of thinking that perpetuates irrational bias against others;

    - arrogance of attitude that prevents a questioning of self and examination of studies done;

    - a failure to examine the long-term consequences of one’s actions;

    - a readiness to accept that cultural habits and traditions that one has become used to are therefore acceptable and appropriate in a rapidly-changing world;

    -  a lack of self-discipline;

    -  hostility toward those who are different.

    Posted by Brenda Rosser  on  19/02/07  at  01:56 PM
  25. Thanks for the greatest hits Brenda, .  It seems one mans critical thought is anothers practiced dietribe. Touche I suppose and just who the hell is Herbert Johnson? I think that may have been a sarcastic sock puppet kept flying by that aforemetioned blowing of wind.  It’s good to see you haven’t lost hope Brenda, cheers.  Remember if it doesn’t break down in salt water, it will in molten lava.

    Posted by John Herbert  on  19/02/07  at  10:08 PM
  26. One would think that now tomas’s ego, (no longer able to withstand the onslaught of T.T posters), ended up outing himself ! but thats cool ! i’d much rather see the face behind the quackery he displays here , which incidently must be an embarrassment to his colleages ,i would have thought, but then again,  what do i know bein a bogan an all.
                          d.d.

    Posted by DON DAVEY  on  20/02/07  at  12:51 AM
  27. In Defence of Tomas, jsut because he criticises the green perspective doesn’t make him hostile to those who are different.  I believe you have displayed your own fair share of hostility Brenda.  One mans quackery is another mans Bogan alter ego Don.  Many Bogan alter egos there are coming out nowadays.

    Posted by John Herbert  on  20/02/07  at  09:50 AM
  28. I am just wondering how much of the mechanisms of our current society are both responsible and impeding any sufficient changes.

    To say we need to change is one thing, actually effecting that change is another.

    It is because we dont have sufficient controls over many aspects of our society (free market) that it is difficult to change.

    So maybe the debate ‘should’ be more about effecting suitable ocntrols over our societies function before we can move on whole scale effective changes will be positive for anthropogenic climate change.

    Posted by john reeves  on  20/02/07  at  03:01 PM
  29. John Reeves said: “So maybe the debate ‘should’ be more about effecting suitable ocntrols over our societies function before we can move on whole scale effective changes will be positive for anthropogenic climate change.”

    Totally agree, John.  The Millenium Ecosystem Assessment Report said the same thing.

    EF Schumacher raises a most basic question. “What do we MEAN when we say something is ‘uneconomic’? Or, to phrase it another way, “what sort of meaning [does] the method of economics actually produce? It means, he says:

    - something is uneconomic when it fails to produce an adequate profit in terms of money;

    - something is economic when it yields a money profit TO THOSE WHO UNDERTAKE IT;

    - what’s good for business is good for the nation;

    - vastly more weight is given to the short term than to the long term;

    - where the definition of ‘cost’ excludes all ‘free goods’;

    - where goods are dealt with in accordance with their market value and not in accordance with what they really are;

    - where man’s dependence on the natural world is ignored;

    - where the buyer is essentially a bargain hunter. He is not concerned with the origin of the goods or the conditions under which they have been produced;

    - where there is no probing into the depths of things, into the natural or social facts behind them. In other words where the market is the institutionalisation of individualism and non-responsibility;

    - where the sacredness of life is ignored and therefore often destroyed. Where money is the highest of all values.

    Like current autistic economics many religious institutions treat man as a being having the right to dominate and subdue nature rather than recognising our codependence with it. 

    Many other factors at play.

    Posted by Brenda Rosser  on  20/02/07  at  06:17 PM
  30. Look, stop worrying, Johnny’s figured out how to save the planet: get rid of the incandescent light globe!

    OF COURSE! WHAT WERE WE THINKING? Now we can keep on selling all that coal and we won’t have to upset our mates who profit from global vandalism! Phew, that was close!

    But wait: what am I going to do with my dimmers which won’t work with Johnny’s fluros? Oh well, suppose I’ll just have to take one for the planet!

    Posted by old_devil  on  21/02/07  at  03:53 AM
  31. Our greehouse gas emissions are less that natural emmisions from rotting vegetation and animals. 
    The principle warming gas, some 98 percent of it is water vapour, of which we have no control. 

    Solar winds and sunspot activity have the greatest effect on cloud formation, the principle controller o0f temperature on earth.

    The greenhouse effect is bunkum and those who profit are actually govenment backed scientests.

    The greehouse effect theory goes back to Maggie Thatcher when she wanted to go nuclear so whe paid people to ‘prove’ coal and oil were bad.  And boy look what she has done. A veritable generation of depressive doomsdayers.  Bring back rock and roll for gods sake, you’ve all been swindled.

    Posted by John Herbert  on  14/03/07  at  11:46 AM
  32. Banjo pickin wood nerd, I think your illustration demonstrates some weakness in the whole C02 warming argument.  On top of all that, C02 only accounts for 2 percent of the warming gasses in the atmosphere, the huge majority of which is water vapour over which we have no control.  I look forward to Al Gore melting at Madam Tussards.

    Posted by John Herbert  on  15/03/07  at  09:47 AM
  33. Its not a matter of doing nothing to redress pollution.  That is an honourable cause, yet it is not the prime focus of the whole climate change frenzy going on. 

    The science behind the claims, are in my opinion tenuous, there is a serious flaw in the logic behind heating periods in the climate and co2 output.

    One of the biggest relative peaks in co2 production came wih the rebuilding of Europe and the subsequent growth of the US and other western nations after WW2.  Yet this is a period of global cooling finishing in the mid 70’s. From what I’ve seen this is irrefuteable and leaves a hole in the theory too big for even Al gore and his lard arse to fill. 

    Now we have armies of mindless beauracrats talking abstractions of models that are thinly veiled alarmism.  Large amounts of co2 would have been conserved if the whole army of these twits had stayed at home. I think I may have to go and have a chunder at the thought of all the righteous pablum that is circulating the earth at the moment, earraappppphhhghhgh!!

    Posted by John Herbert  on  15/03/07  at  07:15 PM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Remember my personal information

Before you submit your comment, please make sure that it complies with Tasmanian Times Code of Conduct.