G'day Len Perhaps you are not asking the right people? Or your 'questions' are a little confused? Honestly Len, I really want to try and answer your questions, if only you would put them in a more succinct frame for me. Cheerio, Markos
"Place a lit candle on a table and place a glass over it. Soon the oxygen will be used by the flame. To the believer in climate change, the flame will go out when the oxygen is used. To the sceptic it will continue burning until the candle itself is finished..."
nothing more simple than my questions markos, go back have a look i asked them of the converts to the belief here as it is here that they need answering. ok one more time: how much is this FIX going to cost? how long is it going to take to get FIXED (not yelling just emphasising)? and someone stated that "we should stop buying their rubbish" i asked for some clarity on what was termed "their" and "rubbish"? eric i dunno how you worked that out? i'm no sceptic then as i believe when the oxygen depletes the candle will go out, not sure what that has to do with this carbon scam. len
G'day Len Thanks for the succinct questions. In response, I don't know. How long is a piece of string? Seriously, as I stated in my OP, if (and that is a huge 'if') a properly administered (please note the heavy emphasis on 'properly administered') 'carbon price mechanism' were to be introduced, I would think that it would cost nothing (yes, nothing, at least in monetary terms). As to how long? Well, human-induced climate change affects the entire globe, so we need to see an entire global response in order to counter the effects. What chances do we have of entering into a period of total global cooperation in this matter, and in the near future? I'd say, zero. However, and this is the important bit, Len (I hope you are taking notes, there will be test on this), we have to start somewhere! May as well be here, Australia, the country with the highest per-capita GHG output in the world! Hope that helps? Cheerio, Markos
ok so next time i take my car to the garage i say just fix it whatever it is and charge me what ever is needed? sorry that is not a good policy to follow that is open ended and shows no projection, displays a certain gullability. as for lenght of time again no parameters visible so the lenght of time will be shortened when we stop driving all vehicles, and stop using electricity and stop eating food, doesn't sound like a wise belief to follow to me. good you mention the global thing this is not just australia is it? not just our what around 1.6% of total pollution (their figures) we supposedly contributed, one might be coming around to thnking that hey let the other 98% do something first and we'll see how it works hey? but they aren't going to are they? so next time at the doc' some might be told they are going to die they may as well not ask him when just go home and wait. so that's just as fluffy as ever and no definition for what was called rubbish back there somewhere hey. we buy neccessities.
The one point on this topic i do disagree with is that this is human induced climate change... climate change was happening for centuries without us humans being involved.... the difference now is we are speeding up the natural process... Therefore I reckon we have human enhanced climate change not human induced.
G'day Eric The reason why we use the term 'human-induced', is to provide an appropriate buffer from the term 'naturally-occuring'. By using the term 'human-enhanced', one must first assume that we have a consensus on the fact that 'human-induced' is occurring. And as we can see from the discussion here, consensus among the lay folk (those respondents to the Herald Sun poll that Len writes of, for example) we don't have. Cheerio, Markos
G'day Len In this human constructed fantasy land we call 'the world', we have those that are prepared to 'lead', and those that are prepared to 'follow', and those that are reluctant to either lead or follow. On the point of transitioning from an unsustainable global economy to one that is sustainable, I would like to think that the good people of Australia (we, the very same people that hold the crown for being the dirtiest - per capita - in the world), would pick up the mantle and run with it, and effectively show the world that we can put our money (oil, gas, coal, iron ore, uranium...) where our mouths are, and become true leaders in developing a truly sustainable global economy. Whether this occurs or not, your guess is as good as mine. Cheerio, Markos
Do you think recognising the "Natural Factor" and focusing on proving the Human enhanced factor would help sceptics with the understanding of what is happening ? I hear a lot of non-believers saying "its not human induced... its a natural occurence". I wonder if we recognise the natural factor when discussing it, would it help sceptics understand the importance of the situation... ?
not interested in becoming a leader for egotistical reasons. ah! at last term "per-capita" is out of the bag, great leveler that hey makes the smallest look as bad as or worse than the biggest(wonder how people like ourselves feel when we try our hardest to minimise our use of fuel and power then we get slugged anyway) as someone cruley said they won't learn slug them, that allows the big polluters someplace to hide, and for one india did not miss the point, if it is such, it is about the globe and nations not about individuals, that puts the onus for the fluff issue back onto individuals we have little hope of impacting corrupt gov' policy. someone pointed out that the sceptical scientists are in the pocket of the oil giants or some such thing, well come outside the C/C comfort zone and take a look the scientists who support the premise are also in bed with the politicians so what's different on one had the pollies have the enemy of the C/C belief that has no end in site no revelation to what to look forward to, and on the other hand they have the oil co's. no difference visible when men and gov come together corruption follows. the way the per-capita figure is created is probably tainted anyway, you take this imaginary number and divide it by 300million then take another imaginary number and divide it by 20million, no variables taken into account like the 20million may nearly all have access to power, cars, fuel and other resources tagged as polluting, but on the other hand how many of the 300million have even access to power let along vehicles, proper homes telephone, so no doubt it will be a very corrupt figure. most pollution if it is an issue will be caused by all cities of the world none more so than in asia, lights burn like daylight all night and most of the day as the building are unable to utilise natural light all bridges are lit up like pagan christmas trees, why all that is needed is to light the motor carriage way. len
This discussion has become really interesting dont stick the knife in people we all have different positions on this and i believe that is ok we need each other .The earth has obviously warmed a little after every ice age , i think Eric has nailed it with his perception that there is "Human Induced And Human Enhanced" . And this is a better way of selling . Problem with naturally occuring change is govts. cant tax it , a comment i threw in early in this thread . Just to shift the focus for a few moments i tried to look into what triggers a ice age i just got lost in technical jargon i cant understand , the cynics might argue it was caused by too much oxygen (sorry) , given long enough everything on earth will be recyled . I believe the human plague has and is still making a dreadfull mess , ask anyone that has been around for 80 or more years they all say the same "Too many people" . By the way has anyone worked out how many extra tonnes of co2 are puffed out by the population today versus even last year let alone 50 years ago , i bet the figures would be frightening , those figures quoted on subsidies to power stations were disturbing im guessing they probably still exist which of course makes a mockery of a pollution tax for a company , we will all be paying it for them anyway . Most of the world are stalling on this , the real reason for the big push here is to get the budget back in surplus by election day , if not then pollies would roll it around the barrel for years and years like everything else .
G'day Eric I don't know. I guess you would have to define, 'sceptic' (syn. skeptic). Generally speaking, there is a very broad spectrum of 'scepticism' as it pertains to the topic in question. At one end you have the 'true sceptics', the scientists. Those who are working very hard to produce evidence for the existence of human-induced climate change that is 100% irrefutable. At the moment, the best they can do is present a 95% 'probability' outcome for the positive. Then I suppose you have sceptics like me, who 'believe' that 95% is probably enough of a probability in order for us (global humanity) to act. Then, right at the other end of the spectrum, you have those who believe, well, they believe whatever is they are paid to believe. These people are in fact not really sceptical at all. They have just decided to take the money and run. And last, but by no means least, you have the denialists. These are the people who the afore-mentioned paid sceptics use as fodder in their propaganda war. It is these folk whom I feel the most for. Through no fault of their own, they find themselves the pawns in a dirty battle for the truth (or as near to the truth that science can provide). In terms of terminology, it all comes down to the veracity (and volume) of material that one should choose to read. The more one reads, the more one begins to understand that by far (hence the 95% probability figure) the majority of credible, peer-reviewed literature on the topic is in agreement: The climate is changing. It is changing at a rate that has never before been observed, and human activity is in a great part responsible for this change. All of the material I have cited in the 200-odd (just a guess) posts I have written in support of the above proposition, all of this material is freely available. Anyone can read it (obviously I can't guarantee that all will understand it, I am the first to admit I struggle with some of the more technical stuff). Never-the-less, I can't read it for others. I can't make people understand. I can't make a blind person see. I can't make people believe one way or the other, nor would I wan't to. For I believe that knowledge must be gained through the desire of one's self to learn. All I can do is offer support to those who would want to learn. Teaching is learning, learning is teaching. For me, this is the essence of permaculture. Before I depart from this thread, I would like to leave you all with one of my favourite quotes from Henry David Thoreau: "The universe is wider than our views of it." Cheerio, Markos
Len, I'd be very careful about what you read on the NIPCC website Len, I'd be very cautious about what you read on the NIPCC website(www.co2science.org). It's creator Dr Fred Singer is notoriously affiliated with Oil and Tobacco companies, and coincidently?, he is an outspoken denier of anthropogenic climate change as well as the "link" between smoking and cancer. https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer
Len, I'd be very cautious about what you read on the NIPCC (co2science.org) website. It's creator, Fred Singer, is notoriously affiliated with major oil and tobacco companies, and coincidently?, is an outspoken denier of anthropogenic climate change and the links between smoking and cancer. https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer Your are right though, we are all being conned. Colin
yep colin, the false belief prophecy of C/C that makes indiviual citizens the pollution causers (not at all agreeing with the carbon conjecture), just as much in bed with the gov' as the tobacco and oil industry are, and i'll say it again once men and gov' come together corruption follows and add some sort of lunatic fringe type politics into the pea soup and it all starts looking and smelling like we can't trust any of them. as serious as they are is when asked how long this will take is ask another question "how long is a piece of string", if there is an issue?? it is avery long way from being sold to the citizens, they have moved too far too fast now? and confounding their issue with natural events is a bit below the belt, just like people who lived near a flood area but suffered no flood claiming benefits. i don't align with anybody, but political alignemnt by others certainly seems assured. len
While I don't deny anthropogenic climate change is occuring (the evidence is strong enough for me), I think that the big issue is the fact that we are applying an economic solution to an economic problem. We are tackling the issue of climate change analogous to placing a bucket beneath a leaking ceiling-we are not addressing the causes (industrialisation, overpopulation, disconnection with nature, etc.) only the consequences. A tax on carbon will just flow back on consumers, and an ETS is just selling off the atmosphere to the highest bidders. Colin P.S. I like your straw bale garden!
thanks for comment on the garden colin, with the other i haven't seen any real time proof yet! yes we can speculate that due to industry and over population we might be causing something to happen, but so far that is only in the form of scientific calculation and conjecture, now treating forests as weeds and developing them into little boxes that is another issue, that the money makers don't want to know about there is no long term scientific career to be had just simple old common sense. someone mentioned a photo (cameras can lie a well known fact) that they saw that showed ice missing from some part of the arctic, yes like seasons of drought and lots of rain from season to season thee will be changes some noted others not. the link below show that in one year the ice cap reduced in the next year it increases yes all be it not back in the same place but an increase just the same. again there is no hard copy history in use this fancy appeared some 10 years ago when the ozone hole fell out of favour, sometime after 2 scientists (not on april 1) in australia declared that an eloctrolux vac' cleaner type vortex was going to set up over the antartic hole and suck all our weather over across tasmania and blow it out into the blackness of outer space, yup as i don't drink i can't even comprehend that one. teh natural earthly climate cahnge as i see it is divorced from this new thing, i could take a picture of the local water front in a year that we have our biggest summer tides then take one in a year of our lowest high tides in summer and call that climate change, when it is in fact a natural event. https://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2008aug30_cover.html sadly i see a lot of seemingly inteligent people around the globe, seem to be worshipping this new baseless belief system. and without doubt we'll all go down the economic gurgler together trying to save app' 1.6% ot the total global pollution as they have stated. when humans have comfort zones they will make many things fir so life remains simple tucked up in that comfort zone. i know i used to have my own comfort zone once. bet i can work out who will scream the loudest. aks them questions they go unanswered or get answered with a somewhat flippant question, still waiting to hear what rubbish is being bought and from whom. have a good one len
Surely the National Civic Councils Paper isn't going to give you an unbiased view.Let alone a scientific perspective. They have an agenda and it is politicising the debate.
and the supporters don't have an agenda?? as much as you can denegrate one crowd, when the other is just as tainted. the debate is already politicised as the C/C sciences are in the same bed with the same polititians. so what is realy being said here that one picture has more credibilty than another?? do we have any city in australia with the smog pollution (visible) of bejing?? not that i know of so how can australia be the worst polluter if the less than 2% figure does not feature. len
