Climate Change

[irish2]

Originally Posted by Scaffy

buying fabric grocery bags,

I agree with all points but this. Plastic grocery bags cause huge problems for marine life. They look just like jelly fish to them.

[irish2]

Originally Posted by colinl

Some of you guys come off as real zealots. You have said some emotive stuff, and as I stated, I don't know how much we have contributed to climate change. So here is your chance, convince me it isn't happening. Show me some peer reviewed research on it. Not just conspiracy theories, but credible research.

On a slightly different tangent. Do you believe that whatever we do to the land and sea, whatever we dump into the environment has absolutely no effect the world?

Maybe you should read the credible research from the 80's that said we were about to have an ice age. The first step to stop it was to put coal dust on the polar ice caps to melt them! It is easy to see there is a political agenda at play here. Carbon dioxide has been at much higher levels than now as evidenced by core samples of ice from millions of years ago showing 10%+ CO2.

[colinl]

Climate change as a concept has been around a long time now. The various strategies like carbon trading are only fairly new. I think the first time I really noticed any attention to it was about 93 when I had to do a course on ozone depleting substances when they were getting rid of R12 and moving to R134a.

There is always debate over the economic costs when changes happen. What I've noticed over the years is that despite the doom and gloom forecasts by industry, life continues. Industry may change, and indeed some may die, but they always seem to come up with another industry to replace it.

[Flaming Mo]

Originally Posted by chevypower

The climate is obviously becoming more dramatic in rainfall and drought, which has been taught be believers in global warming.

Below is a BOM year by year graph for Australian rainfall from 1900-2005. Could you please direct me to this dramatic change in rainfall and drought you speak of.

http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/20...-rainfall.html

[colinl]

Originally Posted by irish2

Maybe you should read the credible research from the 80's that said we were about to have an ice age. The first step to stop it was to put coal dust on the polar ice caps to melt them! It is easy to see there is a political agenda at play here. Carbon dioxide has been at much higher levels than now as evidenced by core samples of ice from millions of years ago showing 10%+ CO2.

I was around in the eighties, I can't say I ever heard of those reports or studies. I don't suppose you would have uni or research centre name that would help me track them down?

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by Flaming Mo

Below is a BOM year by year graph for Australian rainfall from 1900-2005. Could you please direct me to this dramatic change in rainfall and drought you speak of.

http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/20...-rainfall.html

Oh sorry, I didn't realize "global" and "Australia" have the same meaning. My apologies! All this time, I thought 2005 was 6 years ago too.... silly me!

[tweeked]

If Climate Change was real, there would never have been the need for the "scientists" to email each other with what data to hide and how to present the data they wanted to show in a way to maximise the "climate change" affect.

It is just a way that enviromentalists found a way to push their cause.

Previously "enviromentalism" was very expensive if the world followed its agenda. They just finally caught on that they needed to make it more costly to not follow it.

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by Scott

Is it? Compared to what? Or is that just as easy to type as an opposing view? Here's funny fact, Hawaii and Alaska have the same max temps on record.... and both of them were achieved between 80 and 100 years ago! Infact, almost all of America's record temps were set 80 or so years ago.


I don't consider cars when this topic comes up though I guess many do. I think new tax, new tax, new tax. I do consider how many industries and jobs will be lost to the countries that don't subscribe to the fear when our Green Bandits destroy the "concerned, conscientious & caring" Western Worlds ability to compete.

Just who will be the "big boys on the block" when we have finished hobbling and neutering ourselves?

edit - btw, not trying to be narky though it may read otherwise.

You did read where I wrote "I will admit, I really don't know," right? But I will be open minded about it. I will keep considering it could be either way. It's one thing to be skeptical, it's another to be closed minded and just say "it's all a myth." By the way, generally, I don't think taxing is the answer. Some will capitalize on the opportunity to market "green" products, others will capitalize on global warming being a scam. On both sides, you will have people taking advantage of people for personal gain. But you can't really judge a theory by that, can you?
I should add, I totally agree with you on your point about the jobs being lost to the countries that are not as tightly controlled. Increasing costs on environment, health, safety and welfare in the Western culture means we should be imposing import taxes to look after our own economies. These taxes, I do support.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Mr Hardware

MAN-MADE Climate change is a myth
Climate Change is real and will happen no matter what humans do.

Absolutely correct.

There is more energy in one cyclone than has been generated by man since the invention of the wheel.

One volcanic eruption spews more CO2 than we ever have and there have not been any REALLY BIG eruptions for centuries....

[Scott]

Originally Posted by chevypower

You did read where I wrote "I will admit, I really don't know," right? But I will be open minded about it

Yes, but discussion takes at least two (people not personalities) lol.

Originally Posted by chevypower

I should add, I totally agree with you on your point about the jobs being lost to the countries that are not as tightly controlled. Increasing costs on environment, health, safety and welfare in the Western culture means we should be imposing import taxes to look after our own economies. These taxes, I do support.

Amen. I'm not big on protecting local profiteering (unless it's me of course) but like you I am very keen to see jobs stay at home.

[irish2]

Originally Posted by colinl

I was around in the eighties, I can't say I ever heard of those reports or studies. I don't suppose you would have uni or research centre name that would help me track them down?

http://yahoo.usatoday.com/weather/cl...ng_N.htm?csp=1

http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by colinl

Climate change as a concept has been around a long time now. The various strategies like carbon trading are only fairly new.

Actually Denmark has been doing it for the last 30 years except it was more of a way to conserve the worlds natural resources as they were heavily effected by the oil crisis in the 70's. But now they are one of the most heavily taxed country in the world.

................

Anyway while its a nice e-mail can someone show me that its true. If I believed every e-mail I got I should be a millionaire since that nice Nigerian prince wanted me to hold his large bank account for him.

BTW I'm not a believer of man made climate change but I would like something more then an e-mail.

[dave289]

Climate change- when you change the climate control setting on your ford from 17 to 24 degress. Now thats about as far as climate change goes UNLESS YOU CHANGE IT FROM C TO H and about your only change at changing the climate in anyway whatsoever.

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by superyob

Bob Gillard (or Julia Brown) is just trying to impose a tax on the population of Australia for something that occurs naturally. I'll just bet China and India will see the light, once this socialist tax is thrust upon us by these political minnows, and wring their collective hands in repentant sorrow and promise never to befoul our atmosphere with the stench of carbon again...

Maybe before sprouting comments like this you should do some research into the whole carbon tax thing.... The idea didnt spawn here in Australia and is being pushed WORLD WIDE by self serving rich people.... Australia is simply stupid enough to follow the idea....
The term carbon TRADING is self explanitary... if you dont understand that this whole scheme is designed to make corporations TRADE in carbon shares.
Big business is pushing the ajenda.
Hardly a "socialist" idea...

[irish2]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

. if you dont understand that this whole scheme is designed to make corporations TRADE in carbon shares.
Big business is pushing the ajenda.
.

Only the businesses that don't produce much carbon.

[WMD351]

Money money money, the cult of global warming has often been described as a religion.
It reminds me of what a great man once said, "if you want to get rich, you start a religion"

Oh wait, he wasn't a great man, he was a total nutter who spent his days cruising the world on a boat manned by a squad of teenage boys.

edit: I'd like to rescind the above post.

[GT 160]

For me "Climate Change" is not just Co2 emissions, i look at the long term effects of deforestation, population growth etc which at it's current rate is not conducive to long term survival and whilst i don't buy into alot of the global warming hysteria, at the rate we are chewing up this planet it has to have some sort of effect.

I recently watched an amazing doco on Fox called "Home" narrated by Glen Close it does have a sometimes alarmist view towards the environment but the visuals are unbelievable and facts layed down are very hard to ignore.

[Flaming Mo]

Originally Posted by chevypower

Oh sorry, I didn't realize "global" and "Australia" have the same meaning. My apologies! All this time, I thought 2005 was 6 years ago too.... silly me!

Sorry, I couldn’t find a graph that covered the last 5 years, but I can tell you 2006 to 2009 was very unremarkable (all within 20mm of the long term average), and 2010 came in very wet, but still a long way off the record high of the mid 70’s.

Yes, I agree, “Australia” does not mean “global”, but has been identified as one of the countries most vulnerable to climate change, so you would imagine we would have some statistical indicators. We have just spent billions on desalination plants because the experts told us we could no longer rely on rainfall. Now the same experts are saying they predicted the rainfall that now renders the desalination plants obsolete.

I’m like you, I’m not qualified to state one way or the other, I only see what I read. But if AGW is a reality, I think it’s safe to say that the IPCC with their dodgy hockey stick graphs, computer modeling and scaremongering have stuffed up the sales pitch to the public.

[Jim Goose]

There is no doubt we are stuffing up the planet, however trading schemes on the stock market and taxes doesnt solve the issue. Is all designed around money and making a dollar (or several billion).

If governments were ligitimate about climate change, why dont they simply introduce LAWS (OMG MORE LAWS!!!) saying YOU WILL reduce/meet/not exceed/do your best etc... but instead we dont see this, instead all we see are "schemes" (money making) and taxes....

A company a few yrs ago destroyed several thousand hectares of amazon jungle and then replanted PINE trees and got more carbon credits for their efforts!

The scheme works... they made money from cutting the trees, killing animals and removing the locals, then got another reward for planting pines in place of a vital rain forest...?

[colinl]

Originally Posted by irish2

http://yahoo.usatoday.com/weather/cl...ng_N.htm?csp=1

http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

Did you read these. I haven't read the second, and only just started the first, but the opening paragraph is at odds to your statement. Here is the paragraph.

The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era

The article even goes on to say that of all the literature on climate studies at that time, only a few offered the global cooling theme.

But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.

The article is interesting as it mentioned that the global cooling theory was offered because scientist believed the overall pollution would cool the world. It was then that others thought the greenhouse gases would warm the world. So in a way they were all united. They all believed that climate change would occur, it was just a small minority thought the change would be a cooling one.

[snappy]

Originally Posted by irish2

Only the businesses that don't produce much carbon.

Sorry but your wrong the company's that lose are the company's that sell in house .
As in a coal mine in australia selling coal to australians then the tax comes in to play .
But if your coal mining in australia a shipping it overseas they dont have to pay the tax because its the country importing the products problem.

So in short the big company's wipe out the little guys and just keep getting bigger.

[GT 160]

At current rates at least 50% of the Amazon will be gone by 2030

40% of arable land has suffered long term and permanent damage

Every year 13 million hectares of forest disappear

1 mammal in 4, 1 bird in 8 and 1 amphibian in 3 is on the verge of extinction

3/4 of fishing grounds are exhausted, depleted or in severe decline


I could go on and on but this to me is "climate change" and in 20-30 yrs it scares me to think what kind of a place my kids will be left with.

[ebxr8240]

Noah had the right idea..

[CAT600]

Originally Posted by fitzwa

At current rates at least 50% of the Amazon will be gone by 2030

40% of arable land has suffered long term and permanent damage

Every year 13 million hectares of forest disappear

1 mammal in 4, 1 bird in 8 and 1 amphibian in 3 is on the verge of extinction

3/4 of fishing grounds are exhausted, depleted or in severe decline


I could go on and on but this to me is "climate change" and in 20-30 yrs it scares me to think what kind of a place my kids will be left with.

I dont believe its climate change so much as developing countries (without a choice?) raping the land.... what you say about extinction and depletion of both plant and animal has much merit.

But as for climate change in the sence of global warming, I have no time for those that are imposing some rediculous standards and taxes on the masses.

Heavy-handed emission standards (Diesel in particular at the moment is a freakin joke) and uneconomical employment of alternate power generation (Hybrid cars and solar energy) are a false economy...... I really dont believe any of the hype that blames the consumption of fossil fuels for the impending doom of the climate but hunting animals to extinction and the effects of clearing land I am against

Daniel

[CAT600]

Originally Posted by ebxr8240

Noah had the right idea..

Yep, 7 billion people today dont even have as much vision as one old blind man 4000 years ago.

Daniel

[Yellow_Festiva]

Originally Posted by Mr Hardware

MAN-MADE Climate change is a myth
Climate Change is real and will happen no matter what humans do.

I also agree with this.

We are a world run by hypocrites who are more interested in making a buck than trying to save the planet.

While I feel guilty in my own house for leaving a light on, I drive into the city in the evening where thousands of offices are illuminated all night... Wonder how many black balloons these office workers find every morning?

We are asked to embrace public transport, yet it is cheaper for me to drive to the city in my car than use the train. We have an ancient and complex ticketing system but who cares? We have empty buses that run on CNG.. WOW.... I can get across Seoul for around $1.50 yet that is about half of what you need to travel ONE STOP on a Sydney train.

The Insulation debacle. Tens of millions spent to save a few cents on our electricity bill per day, and now we need more tens of millions to fix all the shonky work. But hey, we are all doing our bit right? Where did all those batts come from I wonder??

We are spending billions on a de-salination plant in Sydney, yet almost all that water from QLD has wasted away into the ocean...

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

I'm all for trying my best to do my bit for the environment. I hate waste, but I hate mis-management, profiteering and blatant hypocrisy MUCH more....

[tranquilized]

I just love threads like this!!

So first you say;

Originally Posted by Scott

Climate Change is about money and nothing less. Talk about blindly folowing an ideal eh?

And then;

Originally Posted by Scott

I've not really waded too deep into Climate Change but I do wonder the relationship between the earths population and tempeatures

Sorry to pick on you there mate, but I think this sums up pretty much everyones situation on both sides of the fence on this issue - prepared to make definite statements without any knowledge or research to back them up.

To suggest all the various emissions from human activity will have absolutely no harmful effects on this planets environment is optimistic at best, more like dangerous ignorance IMO.

And carbon trading, yes, I agree - absolute rubbish. Dont agree with carbon trading schemes at all. Carbon tax however, I think this should definitely happen.

Yes I know, its yet another tax. I hate taxes as much as anyone. Thing is, and even the most steadfast climate change skeptic should agree with this unless their head is truly in the sand - we must move away from fossil fueled energy, for the simple reason that fossil fuels will eventually run out. With me so far? So, how can we do this? Why bother adopting new technologies when the old stuff does it just as well at a fraction of the cost?? Carbon tax makes new technology more competitive on a cost basis. It will make more people consider options they wouldn't have previously. It will get too expensive to pollute, so people will look at ways they can stop.

In an ideal world;

A carbon tax is largely an optional tax - dont pollute as much and you wont pay as much.

A carbon tax is a temporary tax. If it works as it should in theory, then eventually there will barely be any carbon emissions, therefore barely any tax.

A carbon tax can harness the market, which is by far the most powerfull tool in a capitalist society, and make it possible, inevetible to move to cleaner energy and industry.

Funds from a carbon tax can be used to subsidise the shift to cleaner energy - solar panels for houses for example.

With no carbon tax or similar, we'll continue on with current technologies until we suddenly run out of oil, at which point the change over to newer technologies will need to be a lot quicker and a lot more expensive than it could have been. So in the long run, the carbon tax isn't very expensive at all.

I should point out that I do realise my points on a carbon tax are in an ideal (fantasy) world, and fully understand that the whole system would be corrupted by any government imaginable, resulting in it being far less effective and more costly than it should be.

Originally Posted by chevypower

I know it's easy to sit behind a computer and say "it's a myth." It takes no research or effort to do that, except for the effort of typing out the words "it's a myth." I will admit, I really don't know. The climate is obviously becoming more dramatic in rainfall and drought, which has been taught be believers in global warming. How much is created by natural changes and how much is created by pollution? Does anyone really know? Even if it's impossible to measure, it doesn't mean it's not real. Does it hurt to try to be a little cleaner? I find it funny and natural that people on car forums would naturally just claim it's all a myth. It's just easier to like cars that way, but it doesn't make it true. Besides, pollution has obvious short term affects, not just global warming. So I'm all for cleaner energy, and conserving that clean and renewable energy rather than wasting it. But I don't think we need to compromise our lifestyles to work towards that. You just have to be smarter. Eg, I think we can have big powerful, fast cars that are clean. That's my thoughts anyway.

This is a great post. Why is it that car enthusiasts tend to be climate change skeptics? Do you feel its your duty as a car guy? Do you feel your hobby is threatened therefore condenm climate change with absolute certainty despite knowing very little about it?

The main point that I want to make is this; YOU DO NOT KNOW EVERYTHING

You dont know that climate change caused by human activity is BS.
I dont know that it isn't.
So the claim is scientists pedal climate change to secure funding. What about the skeptic scientists, aren't they just all employed by oil companies and the like? Whos paying their bills??

No one knows for certain what the real deal is. So wouldn't it pay to exercise some caution? Especially seeing as there are other reasons to do so (ie; fossil fuel depletion)

[irish2]

Originally Posted by colinl

Did you read these. I haven't read the second, and only just started the first, but the opening paragraph is at odds to your statement. Here is the paragraph.

The article even goes on to say that of all the literature on climate studies at that time, only a few offered the global cooling theme.


The article is interesting as it mentioned that the global cooling theory was offered because scientist believed the overall pollution would cool the world. It was then that others thought the greenhouse gases would warm the world. So in a way they were all united. They all believed that climate change would occur, it was just a small minority thought the change would be a cooling one.

They are just articles proving that scientists once believed in global cooling. The global warming agenda started much later.

[irish2]

If the world believed in climate change, coal power would be outlawed and nuclear would be the going thing. Not much point leaving the uranium in the ground turning into lead!

[colinl]

Originally Posted by irish2

They are just articles proving that scientists once believed in global cooling. The global warming agenda started much later.

No, the article just says it was a myth regarding the wide spread belief of global cooling. Those that advocated this were very few. That is normal enough, until conclusive proof is established there are always some that won't agree with the norm. The telling story with this article was that it does demonstrate the wide spread belief in climate change, it was just that some thought it would go the other way.

The second article is just journalistic fluff. It sites no studies, just some selected facts and weaves a story designed to sell media, not examine science.