Climate change could mean the extinction of our species

Quote:

---

Some of us look at both sides of the argument and come up with a different opinion than yours.

---

I've seen just a few pages back how you look at an issue. You decide ahead of time that the rise of ocean levels is due to anything but global heat imbalance. You do a quick internet search and find an article you have absolutely no understanding of, but you think it says ocean level rise is due to El Nino. You link the article. Turns out the article says you can see the oscillatory effects of El Nino and its cousin superposed on top of the otherwise steady rise of the oceans caused by global climate change. We can see how you reason. We understand it. Frankly, you have a lot of balls to even show up again in this thread.

When we examine the mathematics of falling bodies in light of Newton's Principia and the actual behavior of falling bodies, I expect we should come to the same conclusions. When we examine the mathematics and chemistry of planetary atmospheres in light of Newtonian principles and the actual behavior of our atmosphere, I expect us to come to the same conclusion. Most people who have taken the time to understand the physics and chemistry do. We may come to different decisions concerning what to do about those conclusions. The former is science. That latter is politics. You are letting your politics color your assessment of scientific facts.

http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...&postcount=333

http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...&postcount=334

Quote:

---

Someone told me last week bridges were falling down all over the US because of "lack of maintenance". I chose not to believe that, but I respect the persons view and understood why they held it.

---

Did you check the link in the reply post that gave more than one example of bridge collapse in the U.S. within the last decade? You didn't believe there was one, not one bridge collapse in the last decade. When I met your challenge, you didn't say, "Oops! my bad." You chose to bury your head in the sand.

climate scam is the best thing they could come up with?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Did you check the link in the reply post that gave more than one example of bridge collapse in the U.S. within the last decade? You didn't believe there was one, not one bridge collapse in the last decade. When I met your challenge, you didn't say, "Oops! my bad." You chose to bury your head in the sand.

---

Sorry Trish I had not noticed you edited it, I will look at it now.

Well I looked at it and Trish your smarter than this. Your statement was "Bridges are falling down all over the country because we aren't paying to maintain them." And my challenge to you was "Can you name ONE bridge that has fallen down due to lack of maintenance in the last 10 years? The last 30 years? How about the last 100 years? It has never happened.."

Clearly I asked you for an example of a bridge that has fallen from lack of maintenance. The I-35 bridge collapse was investigated, the NTSB determined there was a design flaw in the engineering of the bridge.

Bridges fall down all the time, your talking to someone who lives 35 miles from "Galloping Girdy". But they fall for other reasons than lack of government spending! And you wonder why we don't hang on your every word about global warming. It gets pretty deep in here, its up to the individual to come to a "personal" educated opinion. Sorry if you don't like mine.

Quote:

---

no Trish i don't give a flying fuck .and the real reason the world is in such a mess is because there are far to many people on this world to support it

---

How is that different from what I've been saying? The stress of seven billion industrious people will create anthropic collapse of all sorts of global life support systems, including the climate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

How is that different from what I've been saying? The stress of seven billion industrious people will create anthropic collapse of all sorts of global life support systems, including the climate.

---

Along with all the collapsing bridges, oh what ever will we do.. :wiggle:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

How is that different from what I've been saying? The stress of seven billion industrious people will create anthropic collapse of all sorts of global life support systems, including the climate.

---

i know what Australia needs and thats not a carbon tax or 2 or 3 million more people

How many times do I have to say I am not arguing for a tax, a cap or anything political? We agree: the planet's life support systems are feeling the stress of seven billion industrious people.

OK, suppose climate change doesn't exist. It's a conspiracy conjured up by left wing radicals or people in the Obama administration....
What about the profound problem of infinite growth on a finite planet? What about population growth. We've got 7 billion and it'll hit 9 billion by 2050. Is that sustainable? What happens when it hits: 10, 11, 12?
http://www.economist.com/node/18200618
What about the profound problem of 200 species going extinct every single day... driven extinct, in part, by industrial civilization.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_684562.html
What about 90 percent of the big fish in the oceans are now gone.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...shdecline.html
What about water shortage? The pollution of our lakes, rivers, oceans, soil, air... have I missed anything -- :)
I mean, we've a lot of problems, serious problems. And, again, this is presupposing that global climate change is a hoax, is a myth.
People, um, we've got some real challenges ahead of us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faldur

Along with all the collapsing bridges, oh what ever will we do.. :wiggle:

---

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0803/p01s05-usgn.html

http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/co...mfp=001&st=&cy

Hmmmmmmmmm

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Silcc69

http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/co...mfp=001&st=&cy

Hmmmmmmmmm

---

Kind of nice how they tax everyone.. the US could learn from that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

How many times do I have to say I am not arguing for a tax, a cap or anything political? We agree: the planet's life support systems are feeling the stress of seven billion industrious people.

---

ok i agree but politicians of the left and the right will use the climate to tax it's citizens

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Faldur

Kind of nice how they tax everyone.. the US could learn from that

---

would be kinda nice if you had learned to read at some point in your life

Code:

---

Taxable income          Tax on this income
0 - $6,000              Nil

---

Trish, many thanks for an eloquent summary of the history; I think that as has now been said too many times, the science itself has been overtaken by the politics, on which everyone has an opinion. The decline of popularity in the teaching of hard sciences, maths and engineering in the UK has also created a generation of people for whom even simple science is complex, tv programmes that explain complex phenomena in simple language and using cgi and other techniques are therefore quite popular, but are a substitute for real learning; even in the case of computing most of the teachers in our schools can use a computer but have no idea how it works. One of the reasons why India and China could dominate the world economy over the next 50 years is due to the graduation of enthusiastic scientists and engineers with business ideas, and yet in terms of resources, US universities are still in the top quartile in the world; the irony may be that the US will end up training scientists who go elsewhere to do business; leaving the US with an antiquated infrastructre and Professors in their 90s. I know that I was exagerrating the point, but the GOP contenders are chilling in their indifference to the things that will make the future work, and rely on a stupefying belief in markets and God, who might be omnipoent, but is unlikely to intervene in the US economy, presumably for political reasons...

Where is Obama's Climate Change Agenda? - YouTube

Sen. John McCain refutes a global warming denier - YouTube

Paul Kingsnorth, English writer and journalist, is quite critical of the environmental movement. Not for reasons you may think of:

UNCIVILISATION, The Dark Mountain Festival 2010: Paul Kingsnorth, "Time to stop pretending" - YouTube

And an interview w/ Paul Kingsnorth:

http://www.theecologist.org/Intervie...their_way.html

The carbon Tax is 23 dollars per ton the highest in the world and now our skanky PM can get a job with the UN when she retires.We have already had one factory close down and move overseas and more are said to follow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by russtafa

The carbon Tax is 23 dollars per ton the highest in the world and now our skanky PM can get a job with the UN when she retires.We have already had one factory close down and move overseas and more are said to follow

---

A tax is considered a burden.... High prices are also considered a burden. Oil is a finite resource. And will get more expensive. Plus India and China are going to have greater energy needs -- and this'll boost the price. To put it mildly, well, we're in a pickle.
The reason for a so-called carbon tax is to raise prices on bad things. Like pollution. I mean, you get in your car it creates congestion, air pollution and higher prices at the pump. Not taking into account the long term consequences. It's called an externality. It's a market transaction whereby a third party doesn't consent. You know, I get in my car. Start it. Drive it. What I don't take into account is the air pollution that I'm responsible for. That places a health burden on other people.
So, again, taxes are considered a burden. We could, well, drastically reduce income taxes. Considered a good thing. (That's Ron Paul's proposal. Ya know, it's your income, you worked for it. It's yours. Hence a 0 percent income tax. Is that a good idea? Well, how do we pay for roads, bridges, highways, schools, a police force etc., etc., etc. Do people really want a private police force?
I mean, you can and maybe should address all these issues through popular will or democracy. Ya know, do Australians want a carbon tax. Vote on it. Let the people decide. I'm not entirely sure if I trust people -- ha ha! But, well, that should be the basis for a policy decision like a carbon tax. Let the people vote, let the people decide.)

Each time you breath you increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by 0.00000000002 tons. If all 7 billion of us exhaled at once that would put 0.15 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. In one minute we all put about 3 tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. In a day that's 3400 tons. Of course not of that was released from fossil sources; i.e. it's all part of the natural cycle. Were the carbon cycle in balance, all 3400 tons would be taken up by the world's plant kingdom and a comparable amount of oxygen would be released. Any additional tons of carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere by releasing long sequestered sources (e.g. by burning fossil fuels) tilts the carbon balance, "thickens" the atmospheric "insulation" tilting the thermal balance and stressing the climate. Human industry dumps 30 billion tons of long sequestered carbon dioxide into the atmosphere annually. That's 24000 times as much as the 1.24 million (3400x365) tons of recycled carbon dioxide we breath into the atmosphere annually. Science can't tell us whether industry should be taxed for dumping that those 30 billion tons yearly. Perhaps we shouldn't. Science can only tell us the consequences continued dumping.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben

A tax is considered a burden.... High prices are also considered a burden. Oil is a finite resource. And will get more expensive. Plus India and China are going to have greater energy needs -- and this'll boost the price. To put it mildly, well, we're in a pickle.
The reason for a so-called carbon tax is to raise prices on bad things. Like pollution. I mean, you get in your car it creates congestion, air pollution and higher prices at the pump. Not taking into account the long term consequences. It's called an externality. It's a market transaction whereby a third party doesn't consent. You know, I get in my car. Start it. Drive it. What I don't take into account is the air pollution that I'm responsible for. That places a health burden on other people.
So, again, taxes are considered a burden. We could, well, drastically reduce income taxes. Considered a good thing. (That's Ron Paul's proposal. Ya know, it's your income, you worked for it. It's yours. Hence a 0 percent income tax. Is that a good idea? Well, how do we pay for roads, bridges, highways, schools, a police force etc., etc., etc. Do people really want a private police force?
I mean, you can and maybe should address all these issues through popular will or democracy. Ya know, do Australians want a carbon tax. Vote on it. Let the people decide. I'm not entirely sure if I trust people -- ha ha! But, well, that should be the basis for a policy decision like a carbon tax. Let the people vote, let the people decide.)

---

well Ben it will bring down the government and other governments around the world will be watching this and taking note

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by russtafa

well Ben it will bring down the government and other governments around the world will be watching this and taking note

---

We instituted a carbon tax in the early '70s. All the doomsayers came crawling out of the woodwork then too. What actually happened was that we got scrubbers in nearly every coal fired power plant & other high stack industries, & stopped most of the acid rain that was killing the forests in Canada. But of course if you think it's going to bring down civilization as we know it, I guess we should all just stop everything we're doing & listen to you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hippifried

We instituted a carbon tax in the early '70s. All the doomsayers came crawling out of the woodwork then too. What actually happened was that we got scrubbers in nearly every coal fired power plant & other high stack industries, & stopped most of the acid rain that was killing the forests in Canada. But of course if you think it's going to bring down civilization as we know it, I guess we should all just stop everything we're doing & listen to you.

---

exactly hippie always listen to a bloke with short hair .Hey didn't the previous Canadian govt fall over a carbon tax issue?

Quote:

---

Hey didn't the previous Canadian govt fall over a carbon tax issue?

---

Couldn't tell ya. I'm not Canadian. I don't even know who their PM is & don't care. I'm pretty sure Trudeau was running the show back then.

good on you hippie don't even know what happens across your borders .i am sure most Americans are more aware than you.is it just a hippie thing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by russtafa

good on you hippie don't even know what happens across your borders .i am sure most Americans are more aware than you.is it just a hippie thing?

---

I doubt it. Maybe if they look it up, but I don't care enough. Canadian politics are pretty much inconsequential to me or most Americans. I guess that's why it gets no media coverage at all down here. Same goes for the upside downers. That's you, right? I don't know or care who your PM is either. It has no effect on me whatsoever. I only know who Brown & Sarkozy are becase they get covered. Other than that, the only honchos we hear about are the ones we're demonizing this week. The rest are just there in case we need somebody to turn our attention to. Y'all don't count for anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hippifried

I doubt it. Maybe if they look it up, but I don't care enough. Canadian politics are pretty much inconsequential to me or most Americans. I guess that's why it gets no media coverage at all down here. Same goes for the upside downers. That's you, right? I don't know or care who your PM is either. It has no effect on me whatsoever. I only know who Brown & Sarkozy are becase they get covered. Other than that, the only honchos we hear about are the ones we're demonizing this week. The rest are just there in case we need somebody to turn our attention to. Y'all don't count for anything.

---

i suppose that's why you are a hippie because you know sweet fuck all and you count sweet fuck all.Hippies don't count in Australia because they are like abo's and just pick their nose or pick their arse and that's it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by russtafa

i suppose that's why you are a hippie because you know sweet fuck all and you count sweet fuck all.Hippies don't count in Australia because they are like abo's and just pick their nose or pick their arse and that's it

---

Doesn't matter, because you don't know me. You don't know my country. You certainly don't know what hippies are, ever were, or what the movement was about. We changed the mindset of the world in 5 short years. What have you ever done? What? You think I must be stupid because I don't give a shit about the local politics in insignificant places? I don't know or care who the mayor of Podunk Iowa is either. Do you? Why not? They have more world significance than Australia. They produce food for the world, & they're part of America. You don't count. All y'all have is beaches, & you wouldn't even know how to surf if it wasn't for us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hippifried

Doesn't matter, because you don't know me. You don't know my country. You certainly don't know what hippies are, ever were, or what the movement was about. We changed the mindset of the world in 5 short years. What have you ever done? What? You think I must be stupid because I don't give a shit about the local politics in insignificant places? I don't know or care who the mayor of Podunk Iowa is either. Do you? Why not? They have more world significance than Australia. They produce food for the world, & they're part of America. You don't count. All y'all have is beaches, & you wouldn't even know how to surf if it wasn't for us.

---

Some of those hippies like Jerry Rubin made it big on Wall Street. Ha ha. Hippies are the same as everyone else, they only look out for their own self interests of greed and money.

Small point Yvonne -he may have looked like a Hippy and smoked a lot of dope and lived in a communal-type pad with the Dead in the background, but Rubin was actually -indeed, literally- a Yippie -founder member of the Youth International Party, and for that reason more politically focused than those hippies who were too stoned most of the time to know what day it was. Although he was part of the Chicago protest in 1968 for which he was arrested, you could argue that by entering the system even as part of its political fringe, he was already in the penumbra of capitalism, and was an early enthusiast for Apple and so on. Pure hippies, have been at the forefront of a counter-cultural movement which included politics but so much else, from environmental activism to the occasionally profit-inducing restoration of otherwise lost crafts in textiles, pottery, jewellery and so on. Contrary to what Russtafa might think, they weren't all layabouts and dope-heads, or devotees of Charles Manson. But as for the nut cutlets, flapjacks and sandals, well I guess its not to everyone's taste, but variety is the spice of life, and the world in the 1960s was also a lot of fun, and not just about protests and riots.

Quote:

---

... as everyone else, they only look out for their own self interests of greed and money.

---

Seems to me you overstate your case. Sure everybody looks after their own interests sometimes, but often taking care not to tread on another person's interests doesn't require an extraordinary diversion from your own. People are very often happy to be accommodating (unless their philosophy and political ideology predisposes them against it). Indeed, I find people generally can be very self-sacrificing when the call arises.

Copenhagen's Climate Summit recorded 140 private planes, and 1,200 limousines, (42 had to be driven in from 150 miles away). How many hybrid or electric vehicles? 5, yup just 5.

Looks like some serious self-sacrificing going on. Do as I say, not as I do.

As any Faldur can see, Yvonne's remarks weren't specific to hippies or attendees of the Copenhagen Climate Summit. So why would you assume mine were?

So you think you're going to have a major world wide conference and people are going to swim, walk or bicycle to it from all corners of the world? Suppose you had attended and managed to get a motel reservation 15 miles from the conference center, would you be walking in the Copenhagen weather (it wasn't pleasant that week) to the talks or would you being taking the motel "limo" (as they are often called)?

But that's an aside. My point remains, namely

Sure everybody looks after their own interests sometimes, but often taking care not to tread on another person's interests doesn't require an extraordinary diversion from your own. People are very often happy to be accommodating (unless their philosophy and political ideology predisposes them against it). Indeed, I find people generally can be very self-sacrificing when the call arises.

I have to sympathise with your point Faldur, and that was a major summit, the costs involved in the Conference of the Parties (aka COPS), the second-level meetings which are charged by the Summits with 'hammering out the details of policy' must also be hiugely wasteful of precious resources.

One of the by-products of international policy making is an addiction to conferences and Summits; it may even be called bread and circuses for all I know. Climate Change since Rio has taken the place that HIV/AIDS used to take, even though real decision-making is not done at Summits but in the less publicised talks that take place elsewhere. It starts with an issue with a major impact on policy which means a policy involving a LOT of money- HIV/AIDs; Climate Change to take the two obvious recent examples; then you have the academic journals which are promoted from within a university (to boost its academic ratings), you have the seminars and and the colloquia, but its when the politicians get involved that big bucks kick in because none of these people stay in 4-star hotels, and business class is for the secretaries. Usually, govt and corporations have a rule -if you have to spend more than 4 hours in the air, you go business class (and BA, Virgin, et al will give you a 50% discount if you block book or book say 100 seats a month).

Thus
A) it makes me laugh when I see advertisements for policy analysts where it says -'May involve foreign travel' -as if this were some kind of punishment;
B) I almost got my leg over at two conferences in the 1990s, sex is part of the unwritten deal (as is the all-expenses-paid 'meal' -ie order the Burgundy), the only reason it never got to the bedroom in my case was that on both occasions they turned out to be flirts who were married (and had been to conferences before and saw me coming a mile away. 'Excuse me' she purred, 'I have to call my husband, he broke his leg last week...'...ouch!).
C) Think of it as a form of international economic Keynesiaism, generating profits and business for lots of people, while giving policy wonks the opportunity to see foreign places and maybe get their legs over and who knows, returning to DC and London and Paris with an exotic bride -?

NONE of which detracts from the gravity of the issue.

Its a case of it being a racket, but watch the ball -and yet, for some reason, video conferencing just doesn't have the same appeal. I wonder why.

I gotta say, conferences for the American Physical Society (even when they're held jointly overseas) never include sex or all-expenses-paid meals. Of course we're only interested in science...not policy. What kind of people do you hang with? :)

And that's the American Physical Society??? Well of course its not on the agenda, and after all in my case there never was a George Clooney moment, but I tend to think of conferences as being similar to weddings where a lot of the people aren't really that interested in the bride and groom, if you take my meaning. Probably time for you to stop gazing at the heavens and make the cross-over to the social sciences, you have the brains for it and I daresay you would be most welcome in that neck of the woods...

Yeah, we actually exist in the physical world, and I am a material girl :) It's been the American Physical Society since 1899. There has been some recent talk of switching to a more grammatical name but I don't believe any name change has yet been made official.
In the sciences people do pay a lot of attention to the talks, but more importantly conferences provide the opportunity to meet colleagues in small group settings (between talks or in the evening) to discuss developing techniques and approaches to problems. A lot of collaborative efforts get their start at conferences and are continued on Skype. Alas most mathematicians and physicists never really take the time to see the city they're visiting :( , unless they take an extended stay on their own money.

Speaking of money, most of the expense comes out of the attendee's pocket anyway. If you keep all your receipts, the University or the Grant organization may kick in a hundred dollars or so (or provide a small per diem) provided you delivered a paper at the conference. It's advisable not to submit receipts for prostitutes or expensive bottles of wine.

Quote:

---

Probably time for you to stop gazing at the heavens and make the cross-over to the social sciences, you have the brains for it and I daresay you would be most welcome in that neck of the woods...

---

Gazing at the heavens with a geometer's eye is in my blood. Don't see myself stopping anytime soon. But I appreciate the invitation to stray into dark and dangerous woods. My, what shiny white teeth you have!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

So you think you're going to have a major world wide conference and people are going to swim, walk or bicycle to it from all corners of the world? Suppose you had attended and managed to get a motel reservation 15 miles from the conference center, would you be walking in the Copenhagen weather (it wasn't pleasant that week) to the talks or would you being taking the motel "limo" (as they are often called)?

---

I don't expect them to swim but I do expect them to live as if they honestly believe what they are trying to sell the rest of the world. Fly domestic, show you care about the environment. For Gods sake its a climate conference, make a asserted effort to ensure that all green transportation avenues are utilized. Bring in hybrid or electrics to replace the 60' stretch limo's.

The leadership of this movement displays a "elitism" like no other. They want the world to take them seriously but they live like drunken rock stars. So to a simple Faldur they obviously don't believe in climate change.

I do a lot of work with Google. We have built many of there local buildings. They have a green building policy that is strict. Common sense approach to actually making a difference in products and technics used in there projects. They pay the additional costs to know the building meets the standards of there beliefs. These are people to look up to. Do as I do, not as I say.

Your assumption is that the attendees are there to sell the world what they believe. That they should be the people to look up to. Most the attendees at a Summit are policy makers from government and industry. Many of those attendees are there to drag their feet, and educating the world on climate science or setting good examples is the furthest thing from their minds. For people to look up to try the actual climatologists.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trish

Speaking of money, most of the expense comes out of the attendee's pocket anyway. If you keep all your receipts, the University or the Grant organization may kick in a hundred dollars or so (or provide a small per diem) provided you delivered a paper at the conference. It's advisable not to submit receipts for prostitutes or expensive bottles of wine.

---

On a more serious note I think its the political arena which is problematic, where expenses are routinely paid for by taxpayers and which revolves around the major summits but where there are also the less publicised, annual, sometimes bi-annual meetings of the various Conferences of the Parties, on Climate Change, Biological Diversity and so on. These involve government officials, UN officials, corporate representatives, and lobbyists and are never held in the same place but moved around the world, at what expense? I guess the difficult of linking government officials from around the world at the same time through video-conferencing is impractical because of time-zones and so on, but the cost must be astronomical.