+ Reply to Thread
Page 17 of 62 FirstFirst ... 7151617181927 ... LastLast
Results 161 to 170 of 613
  1. #161
    Busy-Bee's Avatar
    Busy-Bee is offline Offending people since before Del :D
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    11,210
    Thanks
    3,686
    Thanked
    4,764
    Reviews
    2
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    Past Moderator - Thank you
    Quote Originally Posted by Father View Post

    Back to ideology. Can you explain why the environmental movement is so anti nuclear power? This could drastically reduce global emissions, but they still don't want it. They are anti-hydro too, despite it being our biggest source of renewable energy. It doesn't make sense if it is just about emissions. Wind turbines kill a heap of birds every year. But again, the environmentalists are silent. Don't they care about birds? The natural landscape? I do.
    What's wrong with nuclear power?

    1. Disposal of the waste. Fancy some radioactive waste in your backyard? It's only radioactive for a few thousand years.

    2. Safety. Chenobyl anyone? Let's not forget the nuclear plants in Japan that were struck by the earthquake and then the tsunami.

  2. #162
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,272
    Thanks
    946
    Thanked
    1,022
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Father View Post
    I wouldn't call it a conspiracy. I would call it a religion. The science is no longer driving it. It is now driven by ideology and politics.
    There is a money-go-round element to it. Climate science is a new field. Would you study something at university that you thought was a crock? Who pays climate scientists? Just as Tony Abbott is going to kill off the Department of Climate Change, those people currently with jobs associated with climate change may well end up losing them. Is it not in their best interest to keep the theory alive? If there was no problem, there would be no requirement their position.

    Back to ideology. Can you explain why the environmental movement is so anti nuclear power? This could drastically reduce global emissions, but they still don't want it. They are anti-hydro too, despite it being our biggest source of renewable energy. It doesn't make sense if it is just about emissions. Wind turbines kill a heap of birds every year. But again, the environmentalists are silent. Don't they care about birds? The natural landscape? I do.
    I can't speak for the scientists or other factors, but in regards to nuclear energy, in my opinion, considering what's happen in Japan and Chernobyl, I'm not that keen on it! And isn't it really just the Australian govt. that hasn't really explored nuclear energy? Many other countries have, the States have it... Yes it's cleaner burning, but it's rather dangerous so understandable why its controversial.

    I doubt you care about the birds. Don't go all bleeding heart on us now.

  3. #163
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirst33 View Post
    'According to the range of possible forcing scenarios, and taking into account uncertainty in climate model performance, the IPCC projects a best estimate of global temperature increase of 1.8 - 4.0°C with a possible range of 1.1 - 6.4°C by 2100, depending on which emissions scenario is used.'

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/globalwarming.html
    That is quite a range would you agree?

    It has taken awhile. But the word 'forcing' has finally come out. This is where predicted temperatures become a bit silly. This is where they are literally making things up. They are guessing that CO2 will indirectly result in a further 3 times the warming. So the 1.5 now becomes something more like 4, 5, or 6 - depending on the size of the feedback you input into the models. They is absolutely no evidence to support the such a large feedback. None.
    This is where the 'consensus' breaks down. All scientists will agree with the 1.0-1.5C number when looking at CO2 in isolation. But some say there is a negative feedback (meaning it will rise by less than 1.5), whilst some say it could be as much as 4 or so.

    I would very much appreciate it if you can find some evidence that supports this assumed feedback value.

  4. #164
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    1,272
    Thanks
    946
    Thanked
    1,022
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Father View Post
    I didn't say it was all natural. I have said that about 1.5C by 2100 would be man-caused. This is not a problem. Wasn't 2C the magic 'tipping point'.
    Where are you coming up with 2C all the sudden? First your were quoting 5C, now 2C? As I've pointed out in other posts (with links) 1.5C is enough to drastically change the Earth, and you agree that is happening! I'm beginning to think you're a troll or you actually are Wayne LaPierre.

  5. #165
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    23,042
    Thanks
    6,287
    Thanked
    17,288
    Reviews
    10
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 postsDiamond Star - 20,000 posts
    Awards:
    Bubhub Blogger - Thanks100 Posts in a week
    So do you believe climate change is from, at least partially man, Father or not? I have read lots of your comments on the subject and you have clearly said before it is not at the hands of man but the natural cycles of the earth.

    As to your figure of 1.5 degrees by 2100. I certainly don't claim to be overly educated on the topic, but by your comment that is only 0.5 degrees beyond it getting serious. Since you acknowledge at least some of the climate change is man made, wouldn't it be sensible to address our green house gases now, before we get to critical levels of only 0.5 degrees below panic stations? It seems sensible to me to have a pro active approach in this and address the issue before we get there.

  6. #166
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirst33 View Post
    I can't speak for the scientists or other factors, but in regards to nuclear energy, in my opinion, considering what's happen in Japan and Chernobyl, I'm not that keen on it! And isn't it really just the Australian govt. that hasn't really explored nuclear energy? Many other countries have, the States have it... Yes it's cleaner burning, but it's rather dangerous so understandable why its controversial.

    I doubt you care about the birds. Don't go all bleeding heart on us now.
    I do. Not sure why you would think I wouldn't. The kids absolutely love them. My 2 year olds impression of a kookaburra is very entertaining.

    What happened in Japan was testimony to how far we have come since Chernobyl. It got hit by a massive tsunami with a huge amount of damage. How many people died?

    None.

    And this was a 40 year old plant! Think of how far we have come with safety since then.

  7. #167
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Kirst33 View Post
    Where are you coming up with 2C all the sudden? First your were quoting 5C, now 2C?
    I think you may need to read a little more. If you google 'tipping point', I'm sure you will find many references to 2 degrees. That is apparently why we are spending all this money. To keep the temperature below the magic number of 2 degrees Celcius of warming. It's not my number.
    The 5 degrees is how much the current Australian government thinks it will increase by. That is why we have a carbon tax apparently. To reduce it from 5, back to below 2.
    I'm saying we are most likely at less than 1.5C already.
    But am still looking forward to the evidence of the large positive feedbacks.

  8. #168
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    my house
    Posts
    17,982
    Thanks
    1,414
    Thanked
    7,613
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by pegasus View Post
    I am aware that it only started 9months ago, and want more info regarding any changes that are measureable and directly attributable to the tax.

    Unfortunately I cannot read the article that brv linked (I don't subscribe to the Australian).

    I'm off to cook dinner - but will be back later to check any links or info (also to do some more research myself, as I had heard some murmurs of changes (which I didn't think could be measured yet), and equally I had heard that there were lots of contributing factors which meant that there was no way to know if any changes were actually attributed to the carbon tax.

    Happy to be educated on this one (maybe it might be better to take this into a new thread?)
    I don't either, but the first 2 paragraphs are:

    CARBON emissions from the electricity sector have dived in the first six months under the carbon tax, with much greater use of renewable energy and cutbacks in consumption.
    While the government believes the 8.6 per cent fall in carbon emissions shows its policies are working, it also means it will collect less from the tax than the $4 billion it anticipated this year.

  9. #169
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    my house
    Posts
    17,982
    Thanks
    1,414
    Thanked
    7,613
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 posts
    I think there is too much focus in this thread on "global warming" when it should be climate change.

    On ABC radio the other day, they were saying that extremes are the new norm.

  10. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to BigRedV For This Useful Post:

    Atropos  (06-04-2013),Mod-pegasus  (06-04-2013)

  11. #170
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by delirium View Post
    So do you believe climate change is from, at least partially man, Father or not? I have read lots of your comments on the subject and you have clearly said before it is not at the hands of man but the natural cycles of the earth.
    Where? I have always said that we play a small part. Nothing to get ones knickers knotted up over though.

    Quote Originally Posted by delirium View Post
    As to your figure of 1.5 degrees by 2100. I certainly don't claim to be overly educated on the topic, but by your comment that is only 0.5 degrees beyond it getting serious. Since you acknowledge at least some of the climate change is man made, wouldn't it be sensible to address our green house gases now, before we get to critical levels of only 0.5 degrees below panic stations? It seems sensible to me to have a pro active approach in this and address the issue before we get there.
    No. I don't think the world is going to fall to pieces at 2C.
    I actually think that a modest amount of warming would be a good thing for the Earth as a whole. Along with more CO2.


 

Similar Threads

  1. Vanuatu - Great or not so great?
    By Clarabelle in forum Destination Suggestions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 29-10-2012, 10:56
  2. Green poop
    By Alphabetsoup in forum General Parenting Tips, Advice & Chat
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 24-05-2012, 19:02

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
free weekly newsletters | sign up now!
who are these people who write great posts? meet our hubbub authors!
Learn how you can contribute to the hubbub!

reviews
learn how you can become a reviewer!

competitions

forum - chatting now
sales & new stuffsee all
Carmel's Beauty Secrets
Oil Layering for Firming and Toning Carmel's Beauty Secrets
Did you know that spreading an oil such as Almond Oil or Coconut Oil over your skin after bath or shower helps to alleviate cellulite and also tone and firm the skin?
This Beauty Guide will show you how!
featured supporter
GymbaROO
GymbaROO offers activities for babies & toddlers in a fun learning centre, focussing on developmental education. Classes are available Australia-wide. Enrol today & help your child to reach their full potential. Visit the website to find out more.
gotcha
X

Pregnant for the first-time?

Not sure where to start? We can help!

Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!