G'day Len So, according to you, 'peak oil' is also a 'furphy' (syn. untruth), is it? Care to share with us your list of (credible, scientific, and peer-reviewed) sources as evidence in support of this, your latest claim? Cheerio, Markos
G'day Len Tell you what, in order to save time I'll distill your latest assertions, and in the process provide you with some basic premises with which you may like to use as a platform if we are indeed going to continue and debate this topic. Sound fair? Please feel free to correct me if I have this wrong: Assertion No. 1 - Len does not believe that human-induced climate change is reality. Assertion No. 2 - Len does not believe that 'peak oil' is reality. Cheerio, Markos
that's teh one markos, more personal attacks like you are the only one who can have an opinion, mine is based on the fact that the science is corrupt as they use their own parameters to make their own models to fit their own story in, in other words it is all scientific conjecture, guess work unproven in real time and unprovable in real time. they don't use any real time hard copy parameters all parameters are supposition based on someones opinion of what they observed. i mentioned all the exploits using fuel and wasting and polluting but nope no comment, nope don't start at the right end bring in a tax that they can't say how long will take to fix whatever it is suppsoed to fix, they can't say how much money it is going to take either ove that amount of time either. i have not spoken to a single person in our suburb who believes any of this! only in this forum and another that is very few people speaking up for the community not good thing, more faceless nameless like the scientists. ok sun herald did a poll might give some idea, then the flat earth science supporting sceptics will find something wrong with anything that goes agai0snt their pet furphy's. out of 20,124 people polled 83.75% 16853 people voted against it 16.25% 3271 voted for it. that tells me it has not been sold to the community. all i know is i can voice my opinion cop some abuse and go down with the rest of you when all this eventuates. the majority being ridden over by the minority. don't play with words find the questions i have asked and answer them, tell me why we don't ban all those sports causing pollution first. and stating the obvious smacks of showmanship, i have said myself how i see these issues i don't need that part inerpreted unless others do? or maybe they get impressed i don't know? just don't see what it does to answering the questions. len
G'day Len For a start, it would give us a basic premise with which we could actually begin the debate. At the moment, we have nothing to work with. It's easy, Len. For example: I believe that human-induced climate change is reality. I also believe that peak oil is reality. Hence, and by putting these two positions together, I believe that humanity needs to transition from a global economic structure that is based on the Earth-destroying, socially and ecologically exploitative practice of using non-renewable fossil fuels, to one that is based on the Earth-caring, socially and ecologically resilient practice of using renewables. All you need do is either confirm or deny the above assertions, Len, and then we can move forward with the debate. A simple yes/no answer will suffice. Thanks, Markos
yep marokos, that's it, it is your belief and obviously the belief of others that these unsupported with any hard copy history exist, that is the word hey to each his own, there's muslims, jews, christians,agnostics you anme it they all have a belief in something so which side are you going to jon there then? some one said to me that climate change wasnoted by some person back in the oh i dunno 1860-80's, mm wonder what was to blame then?? T-model fords? he said that was their history, the earths population was what all i can find is about 1.3 billion (someone can correct me it mattes not), we have a tad over 6 billion now, in the 1880's there would ahve been no electricity, anyhow, answer question with answers not questions. whilst ever the waste of fuel and pollution obvious with all those motor sports continues the furphy's have no credability. i would then say we are all equal you at same level not a level above the rest of us. the chief scientist has resigned because the leader of our country has not consulted with her, it's all falling apart: https://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/02/23/3146756.htm start copy: The case was brought by truck driver Stewart Dimmock, who accused the British government of "brainwashing" children by requiring that Gore's movie be shown in schools. While Judge Michael Burton declined to ban the movie outright, he did order the government to rewrite its guidelines to highlight the movie's falsehoods. These were identified in court as follows: Gore's claim: A retreating glacier on Mount Kilimanjaro in Tanzania is evidence of global warming. Finding: The government's expert witness conceded this was not correct. Gore: Ice core samples prove that rising levels of carbon dioxide have caused temperature increases. Finding: Rises in carbon dioxide actually lagged behind temperature increases by 800-2000 years. Gore: Global warming triggered Hurricane Katrina, devastating New Orleans. Finding: The government's expert accepted it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming. Gore: Global warming is causing Africa's Lake Chad to dry up. Finding: The government's expert accepted that this was not the case. Gore: Polar bears had drowned due to disappearing Arctic ice. Finding: Only four polar bears drowned, due to a particularly violent storm. Gore: Global warming could stop the Gulf Stream, plunging Europe into a new ice age. Finding: A scientific impossibility. Gore: Species losses, including coral reef bleaching, are the result of global warming. Finding: No evidence to support the claim. Gore: Melting ice in Greenland could cause sea levels to rise dangerously. Finding: Greenland ice will not melt for millennia. Gore: Ice cover in Antarctica is melting. Finding: It is, in fact, increasing. Gore: Sea levels could rise by seven metres, causing the displacement of millions of people. Finding: Sea levels are expected to rise by about 40 centimetres over 100 years. Gore: Rising sea levels caused the evacuation of Pacific islanders to New Zealand. Finding: The court observed that this appears to be a false claim. Canadian students who have been force-fed Gore's fantasy in classrooms across the nation may have some awkward questions for their credulous teachers in the wake of the British court case. On the other hand, it may already be too late. The damage has been done. end copy. when you have alot of conjecture it can all look like lies at some stage. these 2 main furphy's that are so worshipped in sustainability type forums are hand in glove surely. might be fun to see how many change camps when they realise they are the new poor and we have been taxed to death all to save less than 2% of the worlds pollution. we need perspective. len
G'day Len In the absence of a direct response, I will just have to assume that you deny both the reality of human-induced climate change, and that of peak oil. That's fine, my friend, at least now we can begin our discussion. But before we begin, your cited material is, with all due respect, next to useless. You write of 'conjecture'. Well, my friend, the material you cite is just that: an opinion or conclusion drawn on the basis of incomplete information. Now, for an actual, credible, peer-reviewd, scientific position on the topic of human-induced climate change, I offer you the following 'summary' from the most authoritative, the most simple, the most succinct paper I know of: The Earth’s climate has changed. The global average surface temperature has increased over the last century and many other associated changes have been observed. The available evidence implies that greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are the main cause. It is expected that, if greenhouse gas emissions continue at business-as-usual rates, global temperatures will further increase significantly over the coming century and beyond. The science behind these statements is supported by extensive studies based on four main lines of evidence: Physical principles established more than a century ago tell us that greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide (CO2), trap heat and keep the planet warmer than it would otherwise be. Increasing greenhouse gas levels raise the temperature of the Earth’s surface. The record of the distant past (millions of years) tells us that we cannot take a stable climate for granted. Climate has varied greatly through the Earth’s history. It has, for example, gone through 10 major ice age cycles over approximately the past million years. The past few thousand years have been unusually stable. Together with our understanding of physical principles, evidence from the past shows that climate can be sensitive to small external influences. Measurements from the recent past (the last 100 years) tell us that the Earth’s surface is warming along with rising levels of greenhouse gases from human activities, and that this warming is leading to other environmental changes. Although climate varies from year to year and decade to decade, the overall upward trend of average global temperature over the last century is clear. Climate models, together with physical principles and knowledge of past variations, tell us that, unless greenhouse gas emissions are reduced and greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are stabilised, global warming will continue. Climate models estimate that, by 2100, the average global temperature will be between 2°C and 7°C higher than pre- industrial temperatures, depending on future greenhouse gas emissions and on the ways that models represent the sensitivity of climate to small disturbances. Models also estimate that this climate change will continue well after 2100. A 2°C global warming would lead to a significantly different world from the one we now inhabit. Likely consequences would include more heat waves, fewer cold spells, changes to rainfall patterns and a higher global average rainfall, higher plant productivity in some places but decreases in others, disturbances to marine and terrestrial ecosystems and biodiversity, disruption to food production in some regions, rising sea levels, and decreases in Arctic ice cover. While aspects of these changes may be beneficial in some regions, the overall impacts are likely to be negative under the present structure of global society. A warming of 7°C would greatly transform the world from the one we now inhabit, with all of the above impacts being very much larger. Such a large and rapid change in climate would likely be beyond the adaptive capacity of many societies and species. There are uncertainties in climate science. For example, a precise value cannot be given for the likely range of warming because of uncertainties in climate sensitivity to small disturbances, although climate models and evidence from past climate change provide a plausible range of values. Climate changes over small regions and changes in rainfall patterns are very hard to estimate. Tipping points or rapid climate transitions associated with overall global warming are possible but cannot yet be predicted with confidence. These uncertainties work in both directions: there is a chance that climate change will be less severe than the current estimates of climate science, but there is also a chance that it will be more severe. Source: Australian Academy of Science (2010) The Science of Climate Change: Questions and Answers ...and on the topic of peak oil, I offer you the following: The United Kingdom (UK) is one of the major oil producers among IEA member countries, and until recently, was one of only four IEA net exporting countries. However, the United Kingdom’s North Sea oil and gas production has been declining since its peak in 1999. In 2004, the country became a net importer of natural gas, and in 2006 it also became a net importer of oil... Source: IEA (2010) Oil and Gas Security - UK ...and Italy has some indigenous production of oil and natural gas, but both oil and gas production will progressively decline in the coming years. Italy’s total domestic hydrocarbon production met less than 10% of the country’s needs in 2008... Source: IEA (2010) Oil and Gas Security - Italy ...and New Zealand’s relative geographical isolation from the global oil market supply chain creates a particular challenge to oil supply security. Fortunately, New Zealand has relatively abundant domestic fossil fuel resources, compared to most IEA countries. It has large reserves of coal and some reserves of natural gas and oil. The country has been fully self-sufficient in natural gas supplies; however, domestic natural gas fields are declining rapidly... Source: IEA (2010) Oil and Gas Security - NZ ...and, finally ...Canada is not immune to the risks of a supply disruption. Despite increases in nearby off-shore production, refiners in the country’s eastern provinces rely on imported crude oil, just as many refiners in other IEA countries do, and certain central provinces have experienced oil product disruptions, due to their relative geographic isolation from alternative sources of supply. Moreover, with an extensive system of pipelines moving large volumes of oil from the west towards domestic and US markets across the continent, a significant disruption to any of these pipelines could pose a serious challenge to emergency response... Source: EIA (2010) Oil and Gas Security - Canada Well, how'd we go, Len. Are we any closer to having a shared understanding on the issues of human-induced climate change and peak oil yet? Because we really can't begin to debate how we are going to 'fix' the problem - i.e with a 'carbon tax', and all the benefits/disbenefits that option may entail - until we can actually agree that we have a problem. Cheerio, Markos
you do go on markos, i'm sure everyone already realises from long ago that i think climate change induced by man is a falacy pure unsupported speculation alongwith peak oil so lets cover some new ground maybe, and peer revue is simply your mates who agree with you condoning what you propose, in other words peer revue is more poppy cock, not like me being a mechanic my revue comes when the customer is happy with the job on their machine, not by other mechanics who may or may not like me. now climate change casued by volcano's or by nature now that is probably going to be supportable by ahrd evidence but as their is no money or glory in it that won't happen hey? much like if we replanted the decimated habitat that might change some things as well but alas no glory or money in it no career path. so far you have told us all that you believe your belief in something should be forced upon us, wonder how people might react if say the muslims, or the jews or the christians or whomever did the same, wouldn't be apretty picture hey? so when teh surgeon replaces mu knee the other surgeons won't come along ans say hey roger great job mate hey, no i will be telling him. imagine the mess if every task was judged by peer revue. you may not wanta read this but here is is for those who care…: start copy: https://www.clivespash.org/main.php?page=cnsrsp&style=default SHE'S Australia's chief adviser on all things scientific - including climate change - yet Prime Minister Julia Gillard has never met the professor. Even former prime minister Kevin Rudd met with the now outgoing chief scientist for Australia, Penny Sackett, just once. And all this during 2½ years when climate change was a top priority for the Labor Government. Professor Sackett yesterday told a Senate estimates hearing she had not been invited to provide advice to the Rudd government on greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets, either before or during the 2009 Copenhagen climate conference. She was also not invited to be a part of Australia's 114-strong contingent to the Denmark summit and did not know if her advice had ever been acted on. Professor Sackett said she resigned halfway through her five-year term for both personal and professional reasons, and that the decision to leave was "completely mine". "There was no pressure at all," Professor Sackett told the hearing. Opposition frontbencher Sophie Mirabella said Professor Sackett had been "ignored and shunned" and that it "beggars belief" she was not part of the Copenhagen delegation. Ms Mirabella said the Government set up the office of chief scientist with 16 staff, at a cost of $2.3 million a year, "and yet they don't have any idea what to do with it". "I'm not surprised the chief scientist has resigned, it must be a very difficult path to tread, trying to be effective while being ignored," Ms Mirabella said. When asked what advice she could give to the next chief scientist, Professor Sackett said the Government first had to "set the boundaries of what it would like to achieve from the role". Science Minister Kim Carr said he had had "regular dialogue" with Professor Sackett. The Brave New World of Carbon Trading At the beginning of 2009 Clive Spash wrote a paper, The Brave New World of Carbon Trading, that was critical of carbon emissions trading schemes and argued redesign would not address the concerns raised. He was employed at the time by the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Research Organization (CSIRO), which endeavoured to prevent the paper from being published even in his capacity as a private citizen. The paper had been both internally and internationally peer reviewed, and was accepted for publication by New Political Economy, when CSIRO management first decided to prevent publication. After several months the issue became public and was the subject of debate in the Australian Senate. The CSIRO was forced to release the paper but first attempted to subject the work to serious alterations, to which Clive was asked to assent without making any changes. He felt that he could not agree. The journal New Political Economy also wrote to Senator Carr stating the changes made were so substantive that the paper was no longer equivalent to that which they had accepted for publication earlier that year. After six months attempting to seek due process there remained no internal recognition within management of any failure on their part or any breach of acceptable scientific practice. Despite considerable support from his colleagues Clive felt that he could no longer work within an organisation being run with such an approach to management and where arbitrary judgment over political sensitivities are employed to alter or ban research findings. He resigned his position. An Orwellian Guide to Carbon ETS (PDF). Kevin Rudd: His Part in My Downfall (PDF). https://www.theage.com.au/national/...-resigns-calls-for-inquiry-20091203-k7py.html https://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion-old/liar-liar-your-schemes-on-fire/story-e6frfihx-1225794596030 end copy. oh! sorry as i can't see there is a problems and believe it even less there is nothing then to fix hey. len
Not everything is going to be effected by the Carbon Tax. In Tasmania it is likely Power prices won't increase much because the core power creation is Hydro and Wind. Its a user pays system... If we don't want to pay it, use a cleaner alternative - simple (and the whole point). I see carbon Tax as being very beneficial to Permaculturalists especially those offering courses... more people are going to want to look at ways of being self sufficient and rely less on Fossil Fuels and the like - again, the whole point of it. Voluntary corporate responsibility has failed in ALL cases... I don't believe there is another option.
Just a little nit-picking len. In your first link about the resignation of the science minister, it makes a fair explanation of why Julia hasn't consulted more with the her. I notice that in the second "copy" you leave out the pertinent bits and for some odd reason put quotes around :"regular meetings" as if they don't actually happen. This seems to be spurious use of quotes. My reading of the article is that the chief scientist has resigned because of a matter of personal ego not being sufficiently rubbed. So Len, why are you harping on the about the resignation of the chief scientists. The science minister has had frequent meetings with the chief scientist as said in the first article without the need for quotes and in fact there is another line on it which is not included in the second article you post as copy. I don't know what the usual protocol is between such positions and the PM but if one is in regular consultation with the minister in charge of the portfolio that should be enough I would think. The PM is obviously are too busy to have chit chat with her. I don't know about taking her to the Copenhagen conference. Would that be the normal thing to do. Do the pollies usually take their advisers along. Maybe they just don't like her. Maybe she's an unpleasant or difficult person. There must be tons of advisers to the government on every subject and I would think the PM simply does not have enough time to meet with them all very often. It makes sense that the job falls to the minister.
so wheni reitterate like markos i am harping? is that right. when i worry about the poor i'm a whinger, and any packages the gov' puts in place will dissapear over time, it has all happened before. so while the personal abbuse continues i'll itterate just this one time again, i ahve aksed some qustions through my posts for those who have this C/C & P/O belief/worship, how about answering them. And I would be wanting an honest nonaligned opinion of this from all that are not involved with government as I suspect some people are. The fact is that i see that the UN seems to be involved in this stuff, like if it isn't our um! leader flexing their egotistical muscle then it must a directive. so far there is no indication the US is going this way, there is no talk of it over that side ofeh pacific, the indians aren't going to enter into it, yep can support and understand how they would have no desire to make life anymore miserable for their poor than what it already is, the same goes for korea and china who on top of all this the chinese are going to build 300 or so more coal fired power stations to add to their stable of coal fired power stations already in existance that will = 600 or so stations, all to supply their people with affordable power, which carries into food and all necessities. len
there seems no way to edit my last post so i'll add this bit: using terms like harping and whinging are judgements, the only way one can judge another is to judge the other by ones own merits. len
What would you do, Len... The corporate heavies have had ample opportunity to clean up their own act - and failed. Do you believe in Global Warming but don't want the costs associated with it ? Do you not believe in GW at all ? Do you think we should wait until its broken before we fix it - or apply some preventative measures now ?
dunno eric? most of what you ask has been said and itterated before. the corporate heavies as you call them are profit rakers who are in bed with the gov' so they do what they want with gov' sanctions. and the gov' can't now tax the profit makers without the profit makers passing it on directly to all consumers. there si nothing that has been properly identified that is broken that needs fixing, i think i have said that before. it's all supposition and mathematical calculations and conjecture in someones mind. if pri are political like stated in another thread how then do they weed out undesirables who don't support their platform?? i don't see that permaculture as whole has anything to do with politics. len
Len you do keep on about the poor and when I told you we was as poor as any pensioner you attack me ........... its not the way to get answers .......... You list all those sports that use fuel and I agree that all of them need to cease ........ but how ?......... if they were banned they woud just "go underground", The only way to get people to modify their behavior is to "hit them in the pocket" Over here I have seen penioners on TV whinging that they cant afford to pay their power bill while sitting in front of the plasma TV with aircon on ........ Now I would be that you like us had neither when you were young ......... and we still dont ! and please dont acuse me of being in league with the govt I have known about climate change for 20 years or more - long before the media or the govt ever mentioned the words
well this part of WA is broken - the lowest rainfall on record - the hottest summer on record some over here and sit in my UNairconditioned house with the temp arround 40C watching the horizon all day for smoke because everything is so dry ...........
Ah, I think you mean 'biased views', don't you John? So, you have never actually even read a single, credible, peer-reviewed paper on the topic, much less a whole book? Rather, you would prefer to point us in the direction of a 'made-fo-TV' documentory and cite that as evidence of your 'unbiased views'? The interviewees in that particular (2007) documentary come with lot of baggage, John. You can read all about it, and them, here: Source Watch - The Great Global Warming Swindle Seems funny (not haha, just strange) that you would cite a documentory filled with 'scientists' who are all in the pockets of 'big oil, gas and coal' as evidence in support of your 'unbiased view' that 'they' (who are 'they', John?) use 'junk science'. Honestly, my friend. Try reading/viewing a little more widely. You may be surprised by what you actually find. Just in case you might be interested in doing some critical, 'unbiased' research, I thoroughly recommend the following: Pittock, A. Barrie (2009) Climate Change: The Science, Impacts and Solutions. Melbourne: CSIRO Publishing. I can't guarantee that you will be able to read it in the 74-odd minutes it took you to watch the above documentary, but you might just come away from the experience a little more 'unbiased'. Cheerio, Markos
G'day Len One word, my friend: education. Education, of the free and secular variety, is the answer to all of the world's ills. Regards, Markos
i attacked you? when and where, i never get into personal afronts. ok so the climate cahnge you talk of of 20 years hence is not then the same one that they allude to now, it is a bare 10 years old, this is the carbon one they allude to maybe the earlier ones which i don't deny are casued by nature the earth always changing or volcanos or if man has played some role it would be the mass destruction of habitat world wide. i believe also that is the issues with WA down there mass destruction of habitat, carbon tax will not fix WA issues. the follies that waste fuel and cause pollution will need to be stopped first, they can't go underground they need large tracts of land to race on and water to race on and air to race in, be hard to hide those activities. i empathise with your climatic conditions, but star with casue and effect don't make an effect acause that will give no answers, find the cause and identify it. the WA drought is at least 20 years old it started with some organic cause (not carbon), that was not an issue 20 years ago. they knock down the tree barriers between the coasts and the desert, guess what the desert heat encroaches into the coastal strip, happened in vic they knocked down all the mulga on that marginal land and they have gotten heat waves ever since getting worse a they knock down the rest of the scrub, up here the same as they clear brigalow scrub on marginal ground we are now starting to get those hotter days we never used to get. the problems we have can be dealt with using sense and common sense. and these scientists agree trees soak up their carbon hey? they are setting farmers up to be in a position to do the next step from taxes carbon rading just asmuch fluff. len
mmm marko, education of the free and secular variety??? interesting, maybe Bible studies next? anyhow i did recognise their education, just they are using for ego and against the mass community. no matter how eduacted they appear they can still not answer my questions or prove their case in real time. len
