Jump to content

OT: Is Global Warming real and do people care


Guest Gimili

Is Global warming real and do people care about it?  

44 members have voted

  1. 1. Is Global warming real and do people care about it?

    • Yes
      36
    • No
      8


Recommended Posts

Was thinking about all this global warming stuff and noticed it's been cold one day then hot the next in Sydney recently and now it's raining today which seems fairly normal. We have only had weather forecasts in Australia for a very little time and the rest of it might just be science guessing to keep themselves employed. We certainly know the State Gov't is in no hurry to build the desal plant at Kurnell to water the Eastern Suburbs, and whilst the cynical will say it will be announced straight after the next state election with massive water restrictions, there is certainly no hurry today so perhaps the Gov't knows something we don't and global warming is a massive political plot to avoid building infrustructure such as power stations - I mean the chinese don't seem worried either, building power stations all over the place.

 

Thoughts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The ice age was a naturally occurring phase? And the ice age ending was natural too? Back in 1800's when settlers were bringing sheep etc to west coast, they had droughts of 7-10 years back then too - can't blame CO2 for that.

 

Have just finished reading 'Nine Lies about Global Warming' by the Lavoisier Group.

 

I think that 'environmentally', we as humans can do a much better job looking after our planet, but also that the 'rising sea levels will swallow up all coastal areas in the Pacific' is scaremongering.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ed Zachary.... :lol:

 

Periods of extreme weather conditions have always happened/existed....

 

Just coz something hasn't been given a fancy name, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

 

Cancer has always been around, but way back in the day dudes 'just died'..... then eventually science gave it a name...

 

The El ninio weather patterns have always presented from time to time.... but back in the day it was just sh*t luck... but now we've given it a name like Sergio Garcia's caddy and all of a sudden it's a 'new thing' and caused by 'global warming'....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's dissapointing that 'the powers that be' that like to 'educate' us on global warming etc always fail to mention the enormous impact that the 10 billion + animals raised for human consuption every year make on the environment. The contribution of the billions of tonnes of waste they excrete and emit, the fuel used in transporting them buy the truckload to the slaughterhouse, and the millions of acres of land cleared and soil destroyed by factory farming.

 

They see this as an acceptable thing because, hell, what would we do if we couldn't all eat meat!?

 

A day's food for a meat eater requires over 15,000 litres of water.

A day's food for a vegetarian requires 5,000 litres of water.

A day's food for a vegan requires only 1,500 litres of water.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A day's food for a meat eater requires over 15,000 litres of water.

A day's food for a vegetarian requires 5,000 litres of water.

A day's food for a vegan requires only 1,500 litres of water.

 

243991[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Good point Rosie, but the vego's and vegans give off quite a bit more methane than the others which offsets the water usage! :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

athletes are the same, drink and eat more than sedentary folk, let alone the pools, how much water is wasted filling them up. Outdoor pools, how much water evaporates from them, they all should be built in buildings. I should concrete my backyard so I don't need to use a mower that emits bad sh!t into the air.

 

Tonight, i'm gunna do a nudie run, because the creation of clothes emits bad sh!t into the environment and rip out all of southern Sydney's Christmas lights because they too are destroying our environment just to make little kids smile - hope there's no bindi's.

Edited by gimili9
Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course global warming is real, all you have to do is to take a closer look at the receeding glaciers around the world. What needs to be appreciated that it is a very slow process in our life terms, but in the life of earth it is happening far more rapidly than other periods of climate change.

 

Certainly rising sea levels are a problem, ask any of the low lieing Pacific Islanders whether they are concerned about rising sea levels.

 

Other problems are the shifting rain fall regions, el ninon may be to blame for the current drought and we have seen these droughts before, but what is hypothesed is that the rain belts will move creating deserts in places where there was rain, and turning deserts into more viable land. No big problem unless you happen to live in the region which is turning into a desert.

 

While CO2 is a major contributor, methane abosorbs significantly more IR and is also a significant problem, if you look up around the artic circle you find that there are huge areas of permafrost which are melting, under this permafrost are huge reserves of methane which are being released to the atmosphere. There has also been a number of studies performed on animal flactulants and the contribution they make to greenhouse emissions.

 

Global warming doesn't attract the politicians attention unless it'll loose them votes, 3-4 year term is totally insignificant in the time scale of global warming.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For every major report that there is a huge problem there is another that says there is not!

 

So who do you believe?

 

Each side of the argument has there own agendas as well making the truth even harder to find.

 

Remember,no so long ago, most people thought the world was flat and if you thought otherwise you were considered nuts! Moral of the story? Just because your opinion is different from the crowd doesn't mean you are the one in the wrong!

 

Global warming? I just don't know who to listen to....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is Global warming real and do people care about it?..

 

badly worded question...

eg. you could believe it to be real but think that no one cares about it... so what do you answer? yes? or no?

 

it's really two questions and needs two responses.

 

you could also believe that global warming doesn't exist, but that people do care about the perceived warming...

 

then of course, there's the real question, assuming it does exist, as to what proportion of it is due to human activity and what is naturally occurring...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is global warming real - YES absolutely. This is based on the average temperatre change on earth. The problem is the CAUSE. Not definate yet - it's either man-made or earth-made.

 

 

The interesting thing is that the amount of water on earth does not change. It only manifests itself in differing forms. From living things, to fresh/sea water and non living things - naturally occuring or manufactured.

 

FM

Link to post
Share on other sites

sixofus,

 

Be very careful quoting self interest groups. There is a reason - absolutely non scientific -why Lavoisier Group says there is no such thing as global warming. As a business group it is not in their interests to acknowledge gloabl warming.

 

"The Lavoisier Group is a global warming skeptic organisation, based in Australia. It argues that the evidence for global warming is based on inexact science and that any policy responses, such as signing the Kyoto Protocol, would be too expensive for Australia's industry.

 

The group is closely associated with the Australian mining industry, and was founded in 2000 by Ray Evans, then an executive at Western Mining Corporation (WMC), who was also involved in founding the HR Nicholls Society and the Bennelong Society. Hugh Morgan, former WMC boss and head of the Business Council of Australia until 2005, delivered the group's inaugural speech."

 

I believe that global warming exists and is an issue. Even if it is questionable surely it is better to take a conservative view, assume that it does exist, and address the issues. Even if it is just in case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lawman, I didn't quote anything from the Lavoisier Group, I only said that I'd read their booklet. I didn't say that I agree that there is no such thing as global warming, but that weather changes such as droughts have been happening long before we industrialised the planet. I also stated that we as humans should be taking much better care of our planet.

Edited by sixofus
Link to post
Share on other sites
can we sue big oil for f*cking up the ozone layer ?

 

... sure. then sue everyone who has used their products while being well aware of what it does... meanwhile the world still melts, but at least we've achieved an asset redistribution.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ezyware

Recent global warming is a fact... the measurements are there for all to see.

 

Whether or not it’s a largely natural or man-made phenomena is the main issue of contention.

 

We are more adaptable than most animals, but the history of the planet is littered with the extinction of species due to climate change, and either way we are looking at a possible scenario of conditions that may test our survival.

 

When crossing the road, do you look for cars and try to avoid getting hit, or do you just march across and hope for the best ??

 

We have the choice of doing nothing and hoping for the best, or curbing our impact and hoping it will be enough to allow us to avoid a disaster.

 

Sounds like a no-brainer to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mister Marsellus Wallace
I think it's dissapointing that 'the powers that be' that like to 'educate' us on global warming etc always fail to mention the enormous impact that the 10 billion + animals raised for human consuption every year make on the environment. The contribution of the billions of tonnes of waste they excrete and emit, the fuel used in transporting them buy the truckload to the slaughterhouse, and the millions of acres of land cleared and soil destroyed by factory farming.

 

They see this as an acceptable thing because, hell, what would we do if we couldn't all eat meat!?

 

A day's food for a meat eater requires over 15,000 litres of water.

A day's food for a vegetarian requires 5,000 litres of water.

A day's food for a vegan requires only 1,500 litres of water.

 

243991[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

But a good piece of bloody dead animal washed down with a few very nice tasting beers is soooooo much better than a lettuce leaf and a tofu shake....

Link to post
Share on other sites

Irrespective of which side of the debate you find yourself agreeing with, one thing is foir sure.

 

We could all do more to look after our planet. It is the only home we have.

 

Polluting our planet is equivalent to taking a crap in your lounge room.

 

(and for anyone who likes to crap in their lounge room... it is time to change your behaviour)

 

The smaller the environmental impact we make the better off we will be in the long run.

 

As to the vegtarian, vegan argument... why is it that "greenies" all drive shitty 1975 Renault 12 (or equivalent) that are blowing smoke but want to tell everyone how to live their lives.

 

Time we all took some responsibility for our own actions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It's real. We caused it. We're only just at the tip of the iceberg of paying for it. We'll be bloody lucky if we as a civilisation survive it.

 

244240[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Amen to that. This is a topic close to my heart and one that frustrates me no end. The fact of the matter is that scientific consensus is that climate change is occurring and it is a bigger issue than any of us imagine. To quote from Al Gore, 100% of peer reviewed scientific papers published in the last few years confirms the occurance of a warming climate. The contrasts to popular press articles or those published by interests groups such as Lavoisser where the overwhelming majority indicate sceptism. Not one of these articles or publications has been peer reviewed. In short they are not worth the paper they are written on. Even if you were sceptical about climate change I have to ask you do you want to be the one to roll the dice. As a father of 2 children I care about the legacy I leave behind.

 

Carl Sagan, wrote of a photo of the earth taken from, I think one of Gemini probes just before it passed into the outer reacheds of space, "Look again at that dot. That's here. That's home. That's us. On it everyone you love, everyone you know, everyone you ever heard of, every human being who ever was, lived out their lives. The aggregate of our joy and suffering, thousands of confident religions, ideologies, and economic doctrines, every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilization, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every mother and father, hopeful child, inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every "superstar," every "supreme leader," every saint and sinner in the history of our species lived there - on a mote of dust suspended in a sunbeam."

 

Think about that the next time you read some bullshit from Lavoissier.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

But a good piece of bloody dead animal washed down with a few very nice tasting beers is soooooo much better than a lettuce leaf and a tofu shake....

 

244251[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

maybe.... but regular bowel movements are better than bypass surgery :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
For every major report that there is a huge problem there is another that says there is not!

 

 

You believe the scientists. The vast majority of climate scientists agree that the world is warming and that a large proportion of that warming is caused by humans. The oil/coal industry happily spends money churning out 'reports' saying that it's not true, but it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ezyware

As I wrote earlier...

 

There is general consensus that the earth is warming (science has the data -- e.g. CSIRO) the arguments are about why.

 

However... natural or man-made should be irrelevant to what we do.

 

1. Do nothing and the world continues to warm... we’re screwed.

2. Act now but the world continues to warm... we’re screwed.

3. Act now and the world stops warming... we just might survive.

 

Is there actually a choice other than #3 ??

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cmq, so global warming is a topic you are passionate about. What can we (humans) do? Where do we start then? I believe that freak changes in weather have been occurring naturally forever. I also believe that industrialising this planet has maybe not been the best 'advancement'. We can all do so much more to look after our planet. And just like the recycled water debate, the scaremongers do just that - they don't offer other possibilities. I would rather less 'the world is going to collapse' and more 'this is what we need to do'.

 

As with you, sometimes I completely panic when I think what my great-grandchildren might be dealing with in 100 years time.

 

I remember back when people were so frustrated with fuel prices, that an email went around trying to get people to boycott one particular fuel brand, so that they wouldn't be selling any petrol, forcing them to lower their prices etc.

 

Speaking of fuel companies, they are the ones that own the hydrogen patents so why would they start with that technology until they've used up all the oil.

 

Our family chooses to have only one car, and even with school 4k away, I walk all the kids. We use our water three times (shower then to washing machine then to lawn). But are my efforts negated by the family up the street with three cars, that drive to the local BP 400m away just for milk?

 

Back to the 'what do we do?' question. Lets say that 18 million people in Australia park their cars in the drive way, all make rickshaws and convert the roadways to cycleways, but 18 million people in another country continue to contribute to emissions by driving 7mpg V8's?

 

Is what I'm doing worth it? To me yes, because I'm setting an example for my children.

 

Here's another question for everyone: Let's say we each have an 'environmental' bank balance, and throughout a year, I ride my bike and walk everywhere and not only save money, but build up 'environmental' credit. With the money I saved, should I take a plane flight somewhere, I go into environmental debit.

 

I know we can all start at home, but what next then?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ezyware
Back to the 'what do we do?' question.  Lets say that 18 million people in Australia park their cars in the drive way, all make rickshaws and convert the roadways to cycleways, but 18 million people in another country continue to contribute to emissions by driving 7mpg V8's? 

 

True enough that the USA motorist needs to come to grips with the situation and adapt, but the delta contribution they make to total world problem, does not make them the 'prime suspect' in cause of C02 pollution, that is commonly used by Australians to justify their own actions.

 

In fact, the USA contributes about 1/4 of the world’s total CO2 emissions, and of that, around 1/3 is from their motor-vehicles.

 

That’s a lot, and they could certainly make big gains in that area alone, but even total elimination of the USA’s motor vehicle contribution, will not solve the problem.

 

According to most sources on the subject, coal-fired power stations are a much bigger problem, in the total picture of CO2 emission.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mister Marsellus Wallace

 

But a good piece of bloody dead animal washed down with a few very nice tasting beers is soooooo much better than a lettuce leaf and a tofu shake....

 

244251[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

maybe.... but regular bowel movements are better than bypass surgery :lol:

 

244371[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Never had a problem dropping the kids off at the pool....... if you know what I mean :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mister Marsellus Wallace

Actually had a nice large and very dead piece of cow this evening for dinner, and as an extra bonus Rosie, I actually have a financial interest in a large piece of land where walking hamburgers (aka poll herefords) abound....

 

Mooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Think about that the next time you read some bullshit from Lavoissier.

 

244357[/snapback]

 

 

 

As noted earlier, Lavoissier was born from WMC. In my days as a consultant to "Big Business", I was asked to go and work for WMC, to advise them on IT strategy. I spent 2 weeks in their offices, before I pulled out of the engagement. We had the right to extract ourselves from a client if we had a moral issue. I did so with 2 before I left the big 5 bad consulting world - big tobacco - never accepted - and WMC.

 

The art hanging on their walls is worth millions - in real, $USD money. The connections they have are at the very highest level. And the money they make is beyond belief. And they are quite happy to perpetuate that, whatever the cost to my kids, their kids - or your kids.

 

It was the end of my career as a Big 5 consultant. Makes me smile every day.

 

Because I know Im just a tiny little cog of a tiny little part. But I said no thanks. I will watch my kids grow up, rather than live on a plane, in a hotel, chasing a buck, pandering to companies that have no ethics, no morals, that do not give a shit for the next generation, let alone the next 5 generations.

 

One tiny piddly little decision, but then I sleep very well at night. Tell that to your grandchildren. Or mine.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So how much do you really care about CO2 emissions, there are alternatives to "coal" fired power stations (actually gas powered stations generate just as much, maybe a little less as they are more efficient).

 

The alternative is nuclear, solar, hydro, wind or anything else that doesn't break C-H bonds to create energy and CO2 as a by product.

 

Are you going to be happy with a nuclear plant or a wind farm down the road from you?

 

However, we can all make a small contribution, hands up those who have a light on in a room they aren't in, drove 1km to the local supermarket or are running an AC at 20 deg C (instead of 23) tonight in Melbourne.

 

At the end of the day our efforts are in consequential in our own actions, however as voters, shareholders we can start to make a difference.

 

Will it be enough, buggered if anyone really knows, certainly not me.l

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ezyware
Will it be enough, buggered if anyone really knows, certainly not me.l

 

Betting on expecting people to make major changes to their basic lifestyle is not a likely winner... we need to find a way to let people get by with moderate lifestyle changes, while still making major changes to the impact they have.

 

Assuming that CO2 emissions are the reason for climate change... scientific estimates are that, even with a major commitment to R&D, solar/wind/etc are not likely to be able to replace much more than about 25% of our demand, before we run out of time. Hence, we need something else, and something pretty dramatic.

 

Unpalatable as it might be, Nuclear is the only obvious candidate at this point, but there are better options than the current uranium plants... thorium is a good example of something we could possibly “live” with, in the interim.

 

The problem is getting the more extreme “no nukes” proponents to accept that this may well be the only choice we have right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a lot we can do as individuals. We in Australia have every opportunity to live totally carbon neutral, by opting for Green Energy, and buying Carbon Credits for pretty much everything else. Tada! We now have no footprint...

 

But of course it's far more complex than that. Take me as an example (should I really admit all this?):

I live in Portland Victoria. The major industry here is the massive (Alcoa) Aluminium smelter (which is the single biggest user of energy in Victoria). Actually there's a pretty good wind power industry being set up here too, but that's another story. I own real estate here, and am increasingly becoming more carbon aware by the day. The fact is, one of the biggest and best things Australia can do to help alleviate climate change is to sign Kyoto. I'm all for that, even if Kyoto has certainly got its problems and limitations. But back to Portland, if Howard (or Rudd) did sign, one of the most vulnerable industries would be the one propping up the economy of my own hometown (not to mention my own assets). Not only that, but if the smelter did shut up shop here, Alcoa would not hesitate to build another one in China which they also have major interests in (and is exempt from Kyoto of course...). So the end result would be not one minute difference in C02 created globally, but we'd (my own family and probably the rest of Australia as well) suffer pretty bad.

 

This is crunch time (ideologically) for me. Should I try to re-stick my head in the sand and join the denialist ranks? Should I stick to my beliefs and risk contributing to ruin myself (and my family) financially for Kyoto while knowing that it's almost in vain anyway? Or should I (quietly) sell everything, oppose Kyoto and support other 'solutions'?

 

Did I say complex? The individual carbon neutral part is the easy bit. Err... Wanna buy a house?

 

By the way, there's some pretty cool things being developed.

In Sweden they're getting serious about artificial photosynthesis, which has potential to not only produce hydrogen or ethanol, but also to help suck up c02.

In Holland they're getting VERY good at some amazing co-generation technologies, which get over double the value out of every drop of gas than we can here.

In Norway they're about to start building a Thorium Nuclear reactor, with all the benefits of nuclear but almost none of the dangers of Uranium.

In Australia Origin is getting their Sliver solar technology off the ground, which looks like making solar a LOT more cost effective.

In the US Honda is getting very serious about the hydrogen car's future.

In Japan They're getting ready to roll out residential fuel cells across the country to potentially provide electricity and heat for most of their 46 million homes.

 

There's HEAPS of other positive stuff as well all around the world (hot rocks, algal c02 sequestration, much better efficiency techniques, etc etc). The best way for us to support any or all of this is with our wallets, by (repeat) switching to green energy to show industry that we WANT our energy to come from sources like these. And we need to rid ourselves of the doubt-mongering fossil fuel backed thinktanks who are still somehow able to influence a lot of us.

 

On that, I'll end this rant with a quote from the Washington Post:

"Exxon Mobil Corp., the highest-profile corporate skeptic about global warming, said in September that it was considering ending its funding of a think tank that has sought to cast doubts on climate change."

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ezyware

Cutting our abuse of the environment is a fine objective to have, and using “green” technology to solve the issues we have in the developed nations is all very well, but the real danger lies in the populous developing nations of China and India... China, for example, duplicates our (Australia) entire electrical generating capacity in just a matter of months, at their present rate of development. This is why solar/wind/etc won’t cut it for now... their pace of development is so far ahead of the pace of R&D, that we will simply run out of time.

 

We can’t say to these people, “hey... you guys can’t have what we have” but if we let them achieve it the way we did, they are going to kill us all.

 

Hence we need a radical solution before we totally lose control of the situation... and I suspect that Nuclear may be the only one we have... albeit, I’d be voting on Thorium accelerators.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Pete makes a good point about carbon neutral lives.

 

How many on these forum are signed up with "Greenfleet" my company chips in 50% for any staff who want to join and my leasing company mandates that I must be a member.

 

How effective Greenfleet is, I've got no idea, but its a start.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I work for a big 4 consulting company having returned to the fold after trying my hand at making a difference. In doing this I had lots of preliminay engagement from corporates on the issue however, with the Australian government being one of the most vocal opponents of climate awareness there was just no incentive. So now I am paying the bills but agitating all the time and finally I feel like I am making progress. My company announced last week it was going carbon neutral.

 

"What can I do?" That's easy print double sided, ride to work, take the stairs, tune your car, inflate your tyres, use energy efficient lighting, limit your use of hot water and water in general, turn appliances off standby, insulate your home, switch to greenpower, but locally grown produce, buy fresh food (not frozen), avoid heavily packaged products, install a water tank, turn off the aircon I can keep going if you like.

 

Yes Australia's contribution to the global problem is miniscule however, it all starts with the example. One person cannot make a difference, but together we can.

 

And don't be sold the idea of nuclear - low emissions at the geenration point but huge in the construction and decommissioning. The fact of the matter is that the days of large scale centralised generation is over. It's just that the imbiciles in government can't or don't see it because it is not what industry wants. 50 years from now we will supply our own power from solar cells, micro gas generation and fuel cells. Excess will flow into the grid to service our own community not transmitted 100's of kms from a large scale generation source with all the line losses that entails.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Good article from the New York Times:

For so many years, the term "green" could never scale. It was trapped in a corner by its opponents, who defined it as "liberal," "tree-hugging," "girly-man," "unpatriotic," "vaguely French."

 

No more. We reached a tipping point this year - where living, acting, designing, investing and manufacturing green came to be understood by a critical mass of citizens, entrepreneurs and officials as the most patriotic, capitalistic, geopolitical, healthy and competitive thing they could do.

And the color of the year is...

 

Also, I like this. The USGBC (US Green Building Council, the group behind the LEED sustainable building certification) has produced a report with eight climate actions. Action #3 is all about carbon offsets in buildings. Meaning, if someone produces a building that is proven to be below accepted c02 contributions, that c02 saving can be literally be sold to anyone trying to offset their own c02 use (industry, transport, etc). Much the same as planting trees, etc. The great thing about this is it gives potential for people to invest in greener buildings and have even MORE payback opportunities. A great step forward on many levels, IF it can implemented properly and widely of course.

Report

Edited by Reefmanburger
Link to post
Share on other sites
For every major report that there is a huge problem there is another that says there is not!

 

So who do you believe?

 

Each side of the argument has there own agendas as well making the truth even harder to find.

 

Remember,no so long ago, most people thought the world was flat and if you thought otherwise you were considered nuts!  Moral of the story? Just because your opinion is different from the crowd doesn't mean you are the one in the wrong!

 

Global warming? I just don't know who to listen to....

 

244032[/snapback]

 

 

 

There is one inconvenient truth: the earth is only so big and its resources are limited. Whether the science to prove global warming is convincing or not, each of is with any basic understanding knows that if we use too much of a thing that is limited, we will run out. The Earth comes with its own recycling systems but when we use things up faster than the Earth can replenish them we are going to be in trouble somewhere down the track.

 

The point is that that these natural recycling processes might actually be on a terminal path long before the actual resource they replenish runs out. We've seen these kind of things happen with the extinction of many species, the critical point of unsustainability was reached long before extinction occurred.

 

The basic argument behind those against global warming is not that we will run out but just that we haven't reached the point of unsustainability yet so we don't have to do anything yet.

 

The other argument is that temperature rises and falls are normal over the centuries and this is just a rise and the Earth will rebalance itself. This might actually be true, it's just that the rebalancing might just kill us! The earth will go on but just not with us on board.

 

But a meteor storm is going to kill us all anyway so f**k it may as well use it all up and have a good time :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's all fine & well to exchange ideas on a Triathlon forum, but I doubt it will make any significant difference.

 

I put down all my own personal thoughts and suggestions in an email, and sent it to:: Peter.Garrett.MP@aph.gov.au

 

Whilst it might not make any more difference, it helps me sleep a bit better knowing that I at least tried to make my voice heard.

Edited by MB?
Link to post
Share on other sites

At this point of the argument I'd like to point out that it wasn't all that many years ago that people saying that the earth was round or that it wasn't the center of the universe were burnt at the stake as heretics.

 

My View

Measurements saying that the world is warming up are based on solid data of about 150 years and some guesswork based on a few thousand more. Considering the earth is supposed to have been around in excess of a billion years or so, I figure there isn't enough data to "prove" whether this is a natural or man made issue.

 

For all we know we might have drifted a bit closer to the sun.

 

Slip Slop Slap people

Link to post
Share on other sites
At this point of the argument I'd like to point out that it wasn't all that many years ago that people saying that the earth was round or that it wasn't the center of the universe were burnt at the stake as heretics.

 

My View

Measurements saying that the world is warming up are based on solid data of about 150 years and some guesswork based on a few thousand more.  Considering the earth is supposed to have been around in excess of a billion years or so, I figure there isn't enough data to "prove" whether this is a natural or man made issue. 

 

For all we know we might have drifted a bit closer to the sun. 

 

Slip Slop Slap people

 

245959[/snapback]

 

 

 

AJ, whether or not the case is proven is beside the point.

 

The point is, that should it turn out to be true that global warming is man-made and reversible, doing nothing gets us all killed.

 

Should it turn out that global warming is out of our control and will reverse itself, then sure, acting on CO2 emissions was a “hedging” option that we lost on... but we can’t afford not to buy the option.

 

As I wrote earlier, it’s a bit like choosing to cross the road without looking, and hoping you don’t get hit... vs choosing to take the time to look and actively avoid getting hit. Both may produce the same results, but if there is a Semi roaring down the road, the second option is the safer one to choose.

Edited by MB?
Link to post
Share on other sites

AJ, whether or not the case is proven is beside the point.

 

The point is, that should it turn out to be true that global warming is man-made and reversible, doing nothing gets us all killed.

 

Should it turn out that global warming is out of our control and will reverse itself, then sure, acting on CO2 emissions was a “hedging” option that we lost on... but we can’t afford not to buy the option.

 

 

245963[/snapback]

 

 

 

Careful Mike. With logic you might find yourself attending church just in case Jesus really existed and he's planning on a comeback tour real soon.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Should it turn out that global warming is out of our control and will reverse itself, then sure, acting on CO2 emissions was a “hedging” option that we lost on... but we can’t afford not to buy the option.

 

Careful Mike. With logic you might find yourself attending church just in case Jesus really existed and he's planning on a comeback tour real soon.

 

246003[/snapback]

 

 

 

He can take my spot I am currently excommicado

Link to post
Share on other sites
Careful Mike. With logic you might find yourself attending church just in case Jesus really existed and he's planning on a comeback tour real soon.

 

246003[/snapback]

 

 

 

I see a significant difference between faith and caution.

 

And when it comes to faith... there is, of course, always that little gem of an argument from Douglas Adams... that goes something like... god says he exists through faith, and hence if he proves his existence, there is no need for faith, and hence he no longer exists... thus there is no point in hanging your hopes on a second coming or judgement day.

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...