+ Reply to Thread
Page 36 of 62 FirstFirst ... 26343536373846 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 360 of 613
  1. #351
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    3,054
    Thanks
    269
    Thanked
    1,053
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Father View Post
    It's hard to disagree with you there. But, would you then say that the world was 'a better place' 1000 years ago? Would you rather live back then?

    Sometimes.

    I know the problems are a product of the world we live in, the cars we drive, our air conditioners & heaters, our consumerism, but having a value on carbon (I like to think of it more about a value on our environment) will hopefully make people stop and think about their level of consumerism. I also think there is an obscene amount of money going to big business and their shareholders, often people with no real need for more money, when there are many people with nothing who could make a real difference. If those with loads of money could see they could make a meaningful contribution to poor communities to nurture forests and biodiversity it would make the world a better place.

    I think Australian mining magnates are currently 'controlling' the market, crying poor because of the carbon tax in the hope they can sway the federal election. Well I have seen the size of their profits and assets and I say boo hoo to them, in Gillard's words they 'do not own the minerals'. These greedy billionaires are on a massive power trip and I am thankful some people are standing up to them.

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

    beebs  (22-04-2013),Kirst33  (21-04-2013)

  3. #352
    Mod-pegasus's Avatar
    Mod-pegasus is offline ADMINISTRATOR
    and all that the Lorax left here in this mess was a small pile of rocks with the one word...UNLESS
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    14,652
    Thanks
    1,738
    Thanked
    1,740
    Reviews
    2
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Australia is a country which is rich in mineral resources, but poor in terms of production of goods produced from those resources. People seem to view the mining companies as "Them" vs the public as "us". In real terms - the prices we sell our mining resources for affect the cost of the goods when they come back to Australia. By all means - continue to drive up the costs of producing and looking for primary minerals, however, this in turn drives up the cost of other things. Australia used to be primarily a country which rode on the sheeps back - this has changed and viewing the mining companies as the enemy is not (in my opinion) the way to go in terms of trying to help the environment and the economy of Australia.

    I think a major issue which seems to get very little press is the fact that Australian production has decreased a fair bit in the years of late. (eg. car manufacturing -where we've seen closures of Ford and Holden plants etc) Where manufacturing has moved off shore. So while our emissions may have decreased, we are still primary exporters of fossil fuels. Our mining has increased, not decreased, but we are selling more overseas- then buying it all back. We also now have Australian mining companies expanding their searches for new finds overseas.

    You just have to look at my local kerbside pick up - look at all of the TV's, white goods etc which are on the kerb as throwaways - they have all been replaced within a house. All of those such items have been manufactured overseas with minerals that Australia has produced at home, then sold to the manufacturers.

    Reasons for our manufacturing of goods moving offshore has been mainly financial (eg. China can produce electronic good, cars etc) a lot cheaper than we can).

    So (yes, I am bringing this back to the carbon tax and the stats that have been quoted earlier regarding emissions) while Australia has decreased emissions in recent years - has it really impacted on the amount of emissions - or have we just moved emissions to other parts of the globe?

    Australians are buying more now offshore than previously and production has increased elsewhere. I'm not arguing that Australia should do nothing to decrease emissions, but I'm not sure that the current situation is actually helping our world, from an environmental perspective.

    Has there actually just been a shift, which has actually resulted in less local jobs and industry, and countries doing the producing which have less red tape and accountability?

    I'm just posing questions, because my problem with any thread/debate etc regarding climate change, or the like seems to lead into a pat on the back for Australia for "actually doing something" (like the carbon tax) which I question whether it is doing what people believe it is.

    By the way - I'm using the carbon tax as one example. What really bugs me is how the stats are presented in so many ways and gives such conflicting information seemingly dependent upon the audience it has been presented for.

    I now sit here more confused than ever about what is the "real" story regarding what are the emissions of different countries? is it actually relevant which country the emissions come from? (as otherwise we're importing goods where the emissions have been calculated elsewhere), what is the cost to the environment? Who's statistics should we be taking notice of?

    I'm sure there's many more questions, but that's it for now. Certainly for me, I read these types of threads for more information and education as I do believe man has had a very large impact upon the planet, however, I question how we're going about doing things about it. I do agree that the real impact can't be calculated within a lifetime, but continue to watch, learn and look for more information.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to Mod-pegasus For This Useful Post:

    Father  (22-04-2013)

  5. #353
    Busy-Bee's Avatar
    Busy-Bee is offline Offending people since before Del :D
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    11,208
    Thanks
    3,690
    Thanked
    4,765
    Reviews
    2
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    Past Moderator - Thank you
    James Lawrence Powell, the author of The Inquisition of Climate Science, searched the Web Of Science [WoS: university access required] for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1 Jan 1991 and 9 Nov 2012 that rejected human-caused global warming.

    His search produced 13,950 articles. Only 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17% or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorsed a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. The articles have a total of 33,690 individual authors. The 24 rejecting papers have a total of 34 authors, about 1 in 1,000.

    Mr. Powell's words

    What can we conclude from this study?

    1. In the scientific literature, global warming denial is missing in action.
    2. The authors of the handful of rejecting papers tend not to agree with, or even to cite, each other's work.
    3. Other than the authors themselves, only a handful of other scientists cite the few rejecting articles. Those who do cite them do not themselves reject human-caused global warming.
    4. The rejecting authors have no alternative theory to explain the observed warming. They do not even agree among themselves. A bandwagon this is not.
    5. The vast majority of climate scientists accept the theory that human emissions of greenhouse gases are causing the observed global warming.
    http://www.jamespowell.org/

    Seriously F, if you think you know better than 99.9%* of these published scientists then write a paper to explain your reasoning and make a name for yourself. Why don't you do that?

    *based on figures from the research from Mr Powell

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Busy-Bee For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (22-04-2013),Kirst33  (22-04-2013)

  7. #354
    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 ~Bec~ View Post
    Seriously F, if you think you know better than 99.9%* of these published scientists then write a paper to explain your reasoning and make a name for yourself. Why don't you do that?

    *based on figures from the research from Mr Powell
    Depends what you are looking for in the search. Below is a list of over 1100 papers that support skeptical arguments. Whilst not all the papers don't outright 'reject' the theory of AGW, they do support the arguments that the skeptics are trying to get across.
    http://www.populartechnology.net/200...upporting.html
    And the petition project contains the signatures of over 31,000 US scientists who do reject the theory of AGW.
    http://petitionproject.com/

    But. As I have said before. Who cares? It is not about the numbers on the side of a vote. That is not how science works. It just takes one to prove thousands wrong.

    Peer review has unfortunately, at least in regard to this topic, has been undermined by the 'gatekeepers'. If you have any knowledge of the climategate emails, you will know what I am talking about. Let me know if you would like more information.

    I have no intention of making a name for myself thankyou.

  8. #355
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    my house
    Posts
    18,329
    Thanks
    1,453
    Thanked
    7,932
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 posts
    Climategate emails were investigated and no evidence of fraud was found.

  9. #356
    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 BigRedV View Post
    Climategate emails were investigated and no evidence of fraud was found.
    'Investigated'.
    Are you only after evidence of fraud, or would evidence of 'bad' science and manipulation be of equal value?
    Was there another 'investigation' after climategate II?
    Climategate III is also in the works at the moment by a selected few.

    Would you like me to send some of the emails through? I'm sure people who read the emails themselves can make up their own mind. And no, they are not taken out of context if they are read in context.

  10. #357
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    my house
    Posts
    18,329
    Thanks
    1,453
    Thanked
    7,932
    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 Father View Post
    'Investigated'.
    Are you only after evidence of fraud, or would evidence of 'bad' science and manipulation be of equal value?
    Was there another 'investigation' after climategate II?
    Climategate III is also in the works at the moment by a selected few.

    Would you like me to send some of the emails through? I'm sure people who read the emails themselves can make up their own mind. And no, they are not taken out of context if they are read in context.
    Misconduct was also cleared. By eight investigating committees. The committees did suggest that their findings be more accessible to the public.

    Is this the reason you are so gung ho about recent warming? Because of one sentence in an email

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to BigRedV For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (22-04-2013)

  12. #358
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    10,012
    Thanks
    14,124
    Thanked
    7,612
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by Father View Post
    It is not about the numbers on the side of a vote. That is not how science works. It just takes one to prove thousands wrong.

    .
    No it doesn't, It takes one that then can be replicated over and over. And proving that humans have no impact on climate change has never been replicated over and over.

  13. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to beebs For This Useful Post:

    Anjalee  (22-04-2013),Atropos  (22-04-2013),delirium  (22-04-2013),Kirst33  (22-04-2013)

  14. #359
    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 beebs View Post
    No it doesn't, It takes one that then can be replicated over and over. And proving that humans have no impact on climate change has never been replicated over and over.
    Have you not read a word I have said? No one has said that humans have no impact, therefore, no one would need to prove such. I have said the exact opposite on many occasions.

    Climate sensitivity, despite being assumed without evidence in all the models, cannot be replicated or proven.

    What can be replicated over and over, however, is what the thermometers are actually indicating. Are they are indicating that the climate sensitivity is nowhere near what the models are suggesting.

    Who is the real 'denier'? Those that ignore that the models are blatantly wrong? Those that ignore that the temperature increase has paused for over a decade?

  15. #360
    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 BigRedV View Post
    Is this the reason you are so gung ho about recent warming? Because of one sentence in an email
    'An email'. I think your understanding of the contents of the climategate emails needs some expansion. Would you like me to provide some examples?


 

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
FEATURED SUPPORTER
Be In BlossomWe offer physiotherapy run pregnancy Pilates, pregnancy Aerobics, and Mummy Pilates & Baby Massage classes with a focus ...
REVIEWS
"Made bed time less anxious"
by Meld85
My Little Heart Whisbear - the Humming Bear reviews ›
"Wonderful natural Aussie made product!"
by Mrstwr
Baby U Goat Milk Moisturiser reviews ›
"Replaced good quality with cheap tight nappies"
by Kris
Coles Comfy Bots Nappies reviews ›