Oh dear... seems ecodharmamark only replys when he thinks he's on a winner. Therefore, when there's no reply......... :grin: Via the climate shrill wikipedia - " Seitz was a founder of the George C. Marshall Institute and was chairman of its board. In 1994, the Institute published a paper by Seitz titled Global warming and ozone hole controversies: A challenge to scientific judgment. He questioned the view that CFCs "are the greatest threat to the ozone layer" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Seitz .... Soooo, were Seitz proved right about the ozone hole ? " I remember when the Americans sent up a satellite to measure ozone and it started saying that a hole was developing over the South Pole. But the damn fool scientists were so mad on the models that they said the satellite must have a fault. We tend to now get carried away by our giant computer models. But they're not complete models... If you make a model, after a while you get suckered into it. You begin to forget that it's a model and think of it as the real world. You really start to believe it..." ... and what were the name of the silly fellow who said that - James Lovelock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Lovelock .
David Horton on rogue scientists: In any [scientific] profession there are loners - people, often but not always retired, who feel aggrieved not having achieved due recognition; feuds never forgiven nor forgotten; people hungry for more money than pensions provide; people with extreme political ideology in either direction; people with professional and personal links to people in business enterprises; people with a bee-in-the-bonnet quirky theory never accepted by mainstream science. All of them are available for hire if the new price is right. Probably even if it isn't - often not money but fame and recognition is wanted, and will be achieved. Their task will be to say loudly and often that there are plenty of trees, water in rivers, fish; or that pollution and CO2 are not problems... Source: ABC The Drum Unleashed - Scientific opinion: it's one for the money
Lovelock started working for Shell in 1963, having regular monthly meetings with the Shell boss Lord Rothschild. He states in Homage to Gaia: 'My experiences with Shell left me firmly with the impression that they are neither stupid nor villains. On the contrary I know of no other human agency that plans as far ahead or considers the environment more closely'... In 1973 Lovelock published the results of his work on CFCs in the scientific journal Nature. He concluded about CFCs that "the presence of these compounds constitutes no conceivable hazard". He was totally wrong, a fact that still causes him great embarrassment. In his autobiography Homage to Gaia he describes the mistake as a 'gratuitous blunder'... Lovelock also admits in Homage to Gaia that one of the instruments he designed, to monitor the movement of cattle as they grazed, 'led me to participate in the removal of hedgerows - one of the most destructive changes that happened to the English Countryside after the Second World War. I regret to say I played a small part in this act of national ecocide I loved the English country scene passionately, yet I was as thoughtlessly responsible for its destruction as was a greedy shareholder of an agribusiness firm, or a landowner out to maximize the return from his broad hectares"... Lovelock denies that Chernobyl has caused massive human health impacts. He maintains a position that there were only 45 deaths... A recent report by leading scientists and researchers commissioned by European parliamentary groups, Greenpeace International and medical foundations in Britain, Germany, Ukraine, Scandinavia and other countries suggests that the number of casualties may have bee far higher: "At least 500,000 people - perhaps more - have already died out of the 2 million people who were officially classed as victims of Chernobyl in Ukraine"... Source: SourceWatch - James Lovelock
so what has happened is some information has been gleaned from my web page and a determination has been made (a judgement) this dtermination has then been grafted into this at best discussion (not a debate as no rules apply), so then has started a feeble attempt at character assisination. it's this very attitude by recent comers into pemaculture that keeps people away from the concept of permaculture. before other postes did similar to me they at least had the intestinal fortitude to recognise their indiscretion and apologised. the thing is those who support hypothesis should come outside the boxes and comfort zones and with objectivity and latteral thinking look at what they are supporting and why. i care about the poor in our societies the ones who can little afford to live now and if we are to believe this conjecture about climate change without proof they are going to hurt even more and along with some of the supporters as will as they become the new poor. the worst part probably is those who support this gaossamer suit can't even hint at how long the cost and pain will need to be endured until ths invisible thing is fixed. or does not their responsibilty extend to identifying a fix?? like i said earleir 'sad hey' len
Len, doesn't this apply equally to those who support the hypothesis that man isn't changing the climate? Most objections I've seen to dealing with climate change come from first world folks who are afraid of suffering loss of entitlement and riches. Most of the poor, who don't have electricity, running water or motor vehicles, aren't going to pay any more for electricity, running water or fossil fuels, are they? Any action to mitigating climate change is not going to affect them negatively, only lack of action is going to affect them when their riverside shanty towns submerge or they no longer have a puddle of muddy water to drink from. Perhaps the poor referred to here is only covering the first world poor and the middle classes who may join them, in which case objections to climate change mitigation without a firm foundation of evidence to prove that climate change is not happening largely becomes an act of preserving personal entitlements? Given the broad range of issues facing us as a species, the cost and pain are going to go on for a very, very long time, probably until we have no more to spend, because the very act of spending creates the problem. The only "quick fix" is to get the disasters happening as quickly and drastically as possible so that we don't have to worry for an extended period of time...
yes geoff, we are changing the climate we are chopping the trees down aren't we the cabon thing is the hypothesis it can neither be proved nor dissaproved in real time so therfore they cannot supply an answer to how long our poor and the our new poor are going to suffer, and how much we will all have to pay of what period of time. i don'tnow about the greedy in this equation i come from teh poorer end of town. anyhow i've said how i feel in prior posts. len
G'day Len Firstly, please allow me to say sorry for any hurt or suffering that I may have caused you with my questions. My intention on this Forum is to never hurt anyone. Rather, it is to merely engage in rational discourse. I can now see from the above that you concede human activity is contributing to climate change, and that your main concern seems to focus on the economic (and therefore, social) 'costs' of mitigating and adapting to this altered climate regime. If you would now like to continue the discussion with me concerning the 'costs' (economic, social, ecological, cultural) of mitigation/adaptation, I would be more than happy to contribute. There have been many papers published on the 'human cost of climate change': Human Cost of Climate Change (Google Scholar Search) Is there anything in particular that you would like to discuss? Regards, Marko.
any discussion should deal only with the subject matter not anyones personality, apology accepted. i don't intend to repeat the questions asked earlier, as they remain unanswered, just to be sure i conceded nothing to the carbon theory climate change factor. len
G'day Len Could you please let me know if I have got this right: You acknowledge human activity is responsible for climate change: ...and that we are doing this by deforestation: ...but not by emitting CO2 to the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels: Thanks, Marko.
. "... who feel aggrieved not having achieved due recognition... " Frederick Seitz, A.B. Mathematics, Stanford University (1932), Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University (1934), Proctor Fellow, Princeton University (1934–1935), Instructor in Physics, University of Rochester (1935–1936), Assistant Professor of Physics, University of Rochester (1936–1937), Research Physicist, General Electric Company (1937–1939), Assistant Professor of Physics, University of Pennsylvania (1939–1941), Associate Professor of Physics, University of Pennsylvania (1941-1942), Professor of Physics, Carnegie Institute of Technology (1942-1949), Research Professor of Physics, University of Illinois (1949-1965), Chairman, American Institute of Physics (1954-1960), President Emeritus, American Physical Society (1961), President Emeritus, National Academy of Sciences (1962-1969), Graduate College Dean, University of Illinois (1964-1965 ), President Emeritus, Rockefeller University (1968-1978 ), Franklin Medal (1965), American Institute of Physics Compton Medal (1970), National Medal of Science (1973) Hmmm... " available for hire "... Who's this fellow related to ? " Hans Hoegh-Guldberg…original focus was on cultural economic projects, mainly for Australian government authorities. Scenario planning added to skill base in 1998, and economic/science cooperation from 2000. Examples: “Pacific in Peril” 2000 for Greenpeace, “The Economics of Climate Change for Australia’s Great Barrier Reef” 2004 for WWF, “The Coral Triangle and Climate Change” 2009 for WWF. All co-authored with Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, University of Queensland. Currently concluding (alone) two-year project for NOAA on a socioeconomic study of climate change in the Florida Keys... " https://au.linkedin.com/pub/hans-hoegh-guldberg/14/21b/85 .
pretty close mark, trees do also take in co2 don't they? anyhow: these same scientists say that australia contributes something less than 2% to this carbon issue (please don't bring per-capita into it that just allows the big polluters someplace to hide as india has demonstarted). and what is our hypothetical target? 25% reduction by when 2030 something. boy that's going to make a diffrence to the planet isn't it? and even if we wreck our economy for the sake of the ego of our pollies and of a few others and cut our less than 2% in total that is going to be noticed big time hey. i can understand india not wanting to risk their aleady fragile economy, but big noting big ego australia can't see the risk. ok so we shut down our few miserable hardly belch any smoke coal fired power stations and replace them with nuclear sations much safer hey, yeh create a bi product that our great grand children will still be managing, every one does realise of course the rules of the game you sell yellow cake you get to take back the resultant waste from those countries that buy it, and just to show how big hearted we are probably take a bit more along the way. nuclear power is mor expensive than coal fired so they ahve to artificially inflate the price of power so the masses will see the way of their light. so now world leader australia has shut its power stations down (still have manufacturing and motor cars and truck, boats and planes, still be transporting food acrosss the nation and the world) so we clean up our power act and china which currently has 300 something smoke belching power sations is planning on adding in another 300 or so using our clean burn coal technology, but guess what w will still be mining coal (a polluter in is own rite) and selling it to guess who? china of course. makes sense hey? just like the theory of man made carbon creating global warming, there's that gossamer suit again. oh when we go to nuclear the big winners and still polluting will be the US nuclear industry. and they will artificially push that power price up as well so that eventually renewable will look more affordable, no one wants to talk about the carbon that industry creates relying on mining for certain ingredients and the petro-coal industry for other ingredients the making of it then the transporting of it around the country, but that's a whole 'nutha story hey, all part of the bigger furphy. us being trend setters eminds me of this little ditty " an elephant crossed a rickety bridge and when he got to the othe side a flea on his back said - we realy shook that bridge up hey?" it all comes under that "feel good and being seen to be doing something regime" len
By the rationale presented we shouldn't bother with any positive action whatsoever, because someone, somewhere will always have the capacity and will to do more damage than we do good. And what happened to the Prime Directive of Permaculture, and the Ethics? Or are they optional? They direct us to action regardless of the relative level of impact we might have.
this directive or is it a command? does that mean that we should follow some action although we bleieve it won't work and it has no proven factors to show when, where & how it will work? how many are improving and manageing the habitat? now i know that is a permaculture principal. directive hey? do as we say or your out is that it? heavy stuff. so do people like me eventually get expelled? len
Len, I can see by your concise articulation of the facts, you have obviously researched your subject. Thank you Len, you have opened up a whole new way of looking at the issue!!
It's a question Len. Are the directive and the ethics optional components of the permaculture philosophy? Can we have permaculture without these things, or does it then become a complicated method of designing a garden or farm? Is permaculture about reassessing and re-aligning our relationship with the environment, or is it about ego and feeling good and being seen to be doing something? Burning fossil fuels, wasting resources etc etc all have many more negatives than just the CO2 issue. We can beg to differ on the climate change if we must, yet we can still combat climate change by tackling pollution in general (coal and diesel particulates & acid rain), habitat destruction via mining & drilling (Gulf of Mexico, mountaintop removal and aquifer contamination?!), deforestation for agriculture, inequitable access to resources etc. Action to tackle climate change (even if it doesn't "exist") will tackle all of these other problems (unless they also are a furphy?), and I can't really find a way to think that's a bad thing, just so long as we do our best to influence the way they tackle climate change.
Here's something different.... Physicist Dr. Denis Rancourt, a former professor and environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa, has officially bailed out of the man-made global warming movement. “I argue that by far the most destructive force on the planet is power-driven financiers and profit-driven corporations and their cartels backed by military might; and that the global warming myth is a red herring that contributes to hiding this truth. In my opinion, activists who, using any justification, feed the global warming myth have effectively been co-opted, or at best neutralized,” “Global warming is strictly an imaginary problem of the First World middleclass,” https://www.climatedepot.com/a/7477...maginary-problem-of-the-1st-World-middleclass .............. .
“extremely hard to believe” that an unknown mechanism accounts for the bulk of observed ozone losses. Right, Wrong, Right, Wrong, Right..... :grin: “Our understanding of chloride chemistry has really been blown apart,” says John Crowley, an ozone researcher at the Max Planck Institute of Chemistry in Mainz, Germany. “Until recently everything looked like it fitted nicely,” agrees Neil Harris, an atmosphere scientist who heads the European Ozone Research Coordinating Unit at the University of Cambridge, UK. “Now suddenly it’s like a plank has been pulled out of a bridge.” https://www.nature.com/news/2007/070924/full/449382a.html .
climate change = oportunity No? the 'Who done it' becomes a mute point when one is poised to do well out of scarcity. i cache water. i contain it. i bury it. i hope that one day, before i die; i will be able to sell it to the thirsty masses. i may even get a premium price because it has been 'aged in earth' and carries some boutique hippy wank to it. gotta go mad, i'm telling ya, it is the only way to stay sane. big smile kimbo
Vic fires have been in the news lately so worth a look-see at some of the claims of causation. Some comments about the Victorian fires from the climate shrills... " Climate Institute CEO John Connor... "These are the fires of climate change that we've seen in Victoria... Climate change is not just about warmer weather. It's about wilder weather..." " In 2007 the Climate Institute commissioned research by the Bushfire Cooperative Research Centre, the Bureau of Meteorology and CSIRO Marine and Atmosphere Research. The researchers produced a paper, "Bushfire Weather in Southeast Australia", which,... projected extreme and catastrophic fire weather risks for the regions of Australia through each increment in global atmospheric warming." https://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/20/2497095.htm Sounds plausible enuf.... as long as yer dont have a little look-see at the history of fires in the Oz state of Victoria... .
