PPRuNe Forums


Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 23rd Nov 2011, 07:03   #161 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Central Azervicestan
Posts: 68
BEST??

More he said/she said?

Two new papers vs. BEST | Climate Etc.

BEST;

Publically released before peer review...
but that was only in terms of the preliminary results...
and "to make the science behind global warming readily available to the public"...
and "in order to invite additional scrutiny"...
and I am sure the timing and manner of all this had nothing whatsoever to do with Durban COP17...
and "will form part" of the literature for AR5.

So much for the "bleat, bleat, but it hasn`t been peer reviewed, I`m not listening, neeh, neeh!" standard m.o. from certain quarters...

And for goodness sake don`t mention

"What Berkeley Earth has not done is make an independent assessment of how much of the observed warming is due to human action, Richard Muller acknowledged"

But that`s only a minor detail...

Yes.
"Global warming is real"
No argument there.
Never was...

Last edited by konstantin; 23rd Nov 2011 at 07:22.
konstantin is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2011, 13:54   #162 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 733
The Rise and Rise of "Fake" Scepticism and Google Scholarship

Judith Curry's website eh? Have you critically examined this? Have you looked at discussion and debate about her work - not by laypeople - but by scientists of significant standing within the Earth Sciences community? Have you looked at those two papers she refers to in the link? Have you looked at where they were published? Do you know what the "EIKE" is? Do you know what "Energy and Environment" is? Do you know what its scientific standing is?

Part of being a true sceptic, as opposed to a fake one, is asking questions like these and establishing the reliability/credibility of your sources. because the web is wonderful tool for both information and misinformation as we all know. So given the answers to all those questions, I am immediately suspicious that those two papers may not be all you're cracking them up to be. A true sceptic would be sceptical (no surprise there), until they have either been verified by other scientists of significant standing, or until they have been torn down as deeply flawed junk. Sure, I concede this may be an amazing new breakthrough suddenly showing that the rest of the scientific world has got it all wrong. But you'll excuse me if I don't head off to Ladbrokes and wager money on that possibility.

Google Scholarship

Another point I want to make related to scepticism in general is "Google Scholarship". Google returns answers from websites which are only as good as the search terms you use. If you suspect the moon landings were faked, then google "NASA faked moon landings" and you'll be rewarded with information that confirms your suspicions (as long as you ignore the first hit, which is NASA's own website).

It's a beautiful example on this thread that someone seriously thinks Arctic ice is recovering. I have no doubt that this was extracted from a "sceptical" website. If you want to confirm it, just google "Arctic Ice recovery" and you'll be rewarded with "sceptical" websites arguing exactly that, and giving you all the information you need.........except that the information is wrong and totally misleading (usually deliberately so IMHO). If you go to a serious website where people actually do scientific research, like the National Snow and Ice Data Centre, or the Polar Science Centre, or a dozen others, you can get the real information which shows this is nonsense.

But "fake" sceptics seem incapable of, or just not inclined to actually do this level of research.

Quote:
Originally Posted by konstantin
Publically released before peer review...
As a "sceptic", do you or do you not believe that the peer review process is fundamentally flawed? If it is (as many sceptics allege), then why would you care whether it hasn't been peer-reviewed? Not reviewing it would simply remove any alleged peer-review bias. If it is not flawed, then how do you reconcile that it simply agrees with the rest of the peer-reviewed literature? In fact, how do you reconcile that anyway, regardless of your views on peer-review?

Quote:
And for goodness sake don`t mention

"What Berkeley Earth has not done is make an independent assessment of how much of the observed warming is due to human action, Richard Muller acknowledged"
BEST was created specifically to address allegations from fake-sceptics, primarily originating from the "climategate" scandal, that the temperature record has been doctored or otherwise screwed up by scientists. It has done exactly that, and sceptics are not happy with the results because they confirm what every other credible scientific analysis of global temperature trends says, and that's not what sceptics wanted to hear.

Quote:
Yes. "Global warming is real" No argument there. Never was.
Bulldust. See above. Fake-sceptics have been screaming at the top of their lungs since "climategate" that scientific observations of warming planetary temperatures are all proven to be a giant con. There is an argument there and no matter what evidence is presented to them, fake-sceptics simply will not allow it to go away! The evidence of this is how they have now turned on Muller's team like a pack of wolves! Muller may not have analysed (yet) how much is due to human action, but based on the current trend of BEST confirming exactly what the evidence in the peer-reviewed scientific literature has said for years, are you willing to take a bet that he'll discover something totally different? I mean, do you seriously believe this is a likely outcome?

Last edited by DutchRoll; 23rd Nov 2011 at 21:57.
DutchRoll is offline  
Old 23rd Nov 2011, 20:15   #163 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: BNE, Australia
Posts: 210
Quote:
Well fkuc me peter. There is a post worthy of being catalogued.

I now know the calibre of the idiots who put this Country in it's present state and, of more importance, whom to blame.
Off topic but I don't think we're doing too badly as a country for all intents and purposes.

Better looking economy than Europe or the USA. Not quite as good as China but a much nicer place to work as a result. Good weather, plenty of food for everybody.

Seems to be a lot of whingers, though...

Last edited by chuboy; 26th Nov 2011 at 00:11.
chuboy is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2011, 01:03   #164 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Central Azervicestan
Posts: 68
DutchRoll

We seem to be talking at cross purposes to an extent?

Judith Curry - have heard her referred to rather condescendingly by some, to be sure. Mostly names one would associate with the warmista side, from memory. Not forgetting she is perceived as a traitor to the cause - which is a pity because her site is as close as I have been able to find to something even approaching neutral ground.
Lucia`s is another blogsite which verges on middle ground, although some would dispute that.
If you can come up with another suggestion for a site which does not rabidly proselytise either side of the argument I am genuinely all ears...we all know where to go for a pro or anti "fix".

Peer Review - perhaps I was a little too sarcastic in my allusion to the standard line of the pro brigade about something having to be peer reviewed and published preferably in certain journals - but when it suits the cause then never mind that particular little requirement ...especially if there may be tight timeframes involved???

This article I found quite interesting

Three myths about scientific peer review | Michael Nielsen

the last para or two might put my tongue-in-cheek remarks into perspective?

BEST - some people are not happy with the results because they possibly disagree with the methodologies used?
Elsewhere and previously, windshear proxy data vs actual temps and suchlike...area extrapolation of temps...debate over UHI correction techniques...it just goes on...

Global Warming is Real - okay...
The world has warmed by anywhere between half and one degree C in approximately the last century.
The debate I have seen is to do with the veracity of particular records, the way they are interpreted/presented, the means by which there can be a definitive anthropogenic component identified, and the degree of the component itself.
That was my point.

As far as modelling projections are concerned it is an even bigger can of wriggly things - and the "consensus" crutch is becoming a rather tiresome motherhood catchphrase indeed. Seems to be as commonly used as "carbon" and "pollution" for the benefit of the 6 o`clock news LCD. And there appears to be rather a lot of "consensus" disputation out there...

Layer that over with considerations of it being "to advantage" for organisations, individuals, corporations, departments and governments to continue to milk the whole concept for all it`s worth...pragmatically the overall picture makes for an interesting construct indeed. The Chinese r23 rort readily comes to mind.

All I know is that there has been little significant warming trend, if any, over the last decade or so - which flies in the face of the previous adamant "we are pumping CO2, and look, temps are increasing". So QED.
Except that lately we are pumping even more CO2, but the temps, hmmm...which is where the "but just you wait" argument starts coming in real handy. Pardon my cynicism...

But let`s say you are right...given political and economic world realities I have mentioned in previous posts (and dealing with the thread title itself!) ;
- What to do about it?
- What will Australia`s tokenistic approach achieve in the absence of a whole-of-world emissions actual mitigation process?
[NB - shuffling CERs around the world is not mitigation...except maybe on paper]

Tiring of all this, just quietly - rest assured DR, not a snide reference to this particular exchange!


Might chill out and amuse myself with Climategate II for a while though...that may recharge the batteries...

"What if climate change appears to be just mainly a multidecadal natural fluctuation? They’ll kill us probably"

Gotta love it...hang on, I thought the science was settled?
Jools keeps saying it is...
konstantin is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2011, 01:28   #165 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,044
wasnt this thread about the impact of this new carbon tax, not a debate over climate change, global warming or whateve it will be called next week...
Ultralights is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2011, 01:49   #166 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 52
Posts: 636
Climate Change is well-established science. No ifs, not buts, the science behind climate change due to man made warming is undeniable.

The Carbon Tax will have a minimal effect on us and it's good to see the government taking action on this important error.

No complaints from me about the Carbon Tax, I think it's a good idea and shows great foresight by the government.
peterc005 is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2011, 03:03   #167 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 590
Quote:
First coal fired power stations do NOT send 60 to 70% of the energy up the chimney. The boilers of modern power station are 96% efficient and the exhaust heat is captured by the economisers and reheaters that heat the air and water before entering the boilers.
I'm not sure where he got this figure from but the most efficient single cycle coal fired power station in the world has 45% thermal efficiency. A power station like Hazelwood is probably near 30% efficient and the newer ones around 35%-40%. To get higher than 40% you need combined cylcle power stations which use gas turbines and utilise the byproduct heat to further drive steam turbines.
43Inches is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2011, 03:19   #168 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 28
Quote:
Climate Change is well-established science. No ifs, not buts, the science behind climate change due to man made warming is undeniable.

The Carbon Tax will have a minimal effect on us and it's good to see the government taking action on this important error.

No complaints from me about the Carbon Tax, I think it's a good idea and shows great foresight by the government.
I'll fix it for you

Climate Change is far-fetched science. No ifs, not buts, the science behind climate change due to man made warming is dubious.

The Carbon Tax will have a maximum effect on us and it's good to see the government is going to loose the next election on this important error.

Lots of complaints from me about the Carbon Tax, I think it's a bad idea and shows the great stupidity of the government.

Thats more like it
Splitpin44 is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2011, 04:17   #169 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,593
Well fkuc me peter. There is a post worthy of being catalogued.

I now know the calibre of the idiots who put this Country in it's present state and, of more importance, whom to blame.
Frank Arouet is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2011, 04:25   #170 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 52
Posts: 636
I just get a bit sick of listening to all the loud mouthed, ill-informed, climate change sceptics who believe everything they hear on talk back radio or read on conspiracy web sites.

It's very similar to the UFO spotters down at Moorabbin airport. They think there is some government conspiracy to deny UFOs have abducted people.

When I bump into the UFO people I nod or say hello. There is no point in trying to show the fallacy of their deluded thoughts or psychotic conspiracy theories.

It's same with the multitude of climate change sceptics here.

It seems the most popular whacko conspiracy theories are, in order:
  • UFO landings, Hanger 51
  • The Mafia assassinated JFK for the CIA
  • United Nations taking over the world
  • Climate Change sceptics
  • CIA blew up the World Trade Centres
The science of climate change is good and proven.

Good on the ALP for taking steps to do something about global warming.
peterc005 is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2011, 04:27   #171 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone is zero
Posts: 733
Quote:
n a 2004 email Ricardo Villalba, a researcher involved in preparing material for the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, writes to a number of other researchers: "The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what's included and what's left out."
The Australian

Explain to me how this is not the greatest hoax ever.
breakfastburrito is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2011, 04:34   #172 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 52
Posts: 636
BTW, it's no wind up.

I live in Hampton and fly out of YMMB. My Bachelors degree was in Economics.

I appreciate good science and think the established method of establishing science by testing theories and peer review works well.

Climate change and global warming are good, peer reviewed, science.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Last time I counted there had been six Nobel Prizes for science awarded in the are of climate change research.

Galileo Galilei had "flat earth" sceptics who refused to believe the Earth is round. Today the same type of white, male, conservative people exist as "climate change" sceptics.
peterc005 is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2011, 06:11   #173 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 79
Posts: 1,350
Peter, let me guess you live at the Rocks, right?
teresa green is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2011, 07:14   #174 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: some dive
Posts: 450
Little Peter. Below is from an email going around. Have a good read and then sit back for a night and have a real big think about things. I would suggest you go and read the thread about globalization before you open your mouth again!
Quote:
First I should clarify, my name is Terence Cardwell. I spent 25 years in the Electricity Commission of NSW working, commissioning and operating the various power units. My last was the 4 X 350 MW Munmorah Power Stations near Newcastle. I would be pleased to supply you any information you may require.


I have sat by for a number of years frustrated at the rubbish being put forth about carbon dioxide emissions, thermal coal fired power stations and renewable energy and the ridiculous Emissions Trading scheme.

Frustration at the lies told (particularly during the election) about global pollution. Using Power Station cooling towers for an example. The condensation coming from those cooling towers is as pure as that that comes out of any kettle.
Frustration about the so-called incorrectly named man-made 'carbon emissions' which of course is Carbon Dioxide emissions and what it is supposedly doing to our planet

Frustration about the lies told about renewable energy and the deliberate distortion of renewable energy and its ability to replace fossil fuel energy generation. And frustration at the ridiculous carbon credit programme which is beyond comprehension.

And further frustration at some members of the public who have not got a clue about thermal Power Stations or Renewable Energy. Quoting ridiculous figures about something they clearly have little or no knowledge of.
First coal fired power stations do NOT send 60 to 70% of the energy up the chimney. The boilers of modern power station are 96% efficient and the exhaust heat is captured by the economisers and reheaters that heat the air and water before entering the boilers.

The very slight amount exiting the stack is moist as in condensation and CO2. There is virtually no fly ash because this is removed by the precipitators or bagging plant that are 99.98% efficient. The 4% lost is heat through boiler wall convection.

Coal-fired Power Stations are highly efficient with very little heat loss and can generate a massive amount of energy for our needs. They can generate power at efficiency of less than 10,000 b.t.u. per kilowatt and cost-wise that is very low.
The percentage cost of mining and freight is very low. The total cost of fuel is 8% of total generation cost and does NOT constitute a major production cost.

As for being laughed out of the country, China is building multitudes of coal-fired power stations because they are the most efficient for bulk power generation.

We have, like, the USA, coal-fired power stations because we HAVE the raw materials and are VERY fortunate to have them. Believe me no one is laughing at Australia – exactly the reverse, they are very envious of our raw materials and independence.

The major percentage of power in Europe and U.K. is nuclear because they don't have the coal supply for the future.

Yes it would be very nice to have clean, quiet, cheap energy in bulk supply Everyone agrees that it would be ideal. You don't have to be a genius to work that out. But there is only one problem---It doesn't exist

Yes - there are wind and solar generators being built all over the world but they only add a small amount to the overall power demand.

The maximum size wind generator is 3 Megawatts, which can rarely be attained on a continuous basis because it requires substantial forces of wind. And for the same reason only generate when there is sufficient wind to drive them. This of course depends where they are located but usually they only run for 45% -65% of the time, mostly well below maximum capacity. They cannot be relied on for a 'base load ‘because they are too variable. And they certainly could not be used for load control.

The peak load demand for electricity in Australia is approximately 50,000 Megawatts and only small part of this comes from the Snowy Hydro Electric System (the ultimate power Generation) because it is only available when water is there from snow melt or rain And yes, they can pump it back but it costs to do that. (Long Story).

Tasmania is very fortunate in that they have mostly hydro-electric generation because of their high amounts of snow and rainfall. They also have wind generators (located in the roaring forties) but that is only a small amount of total power generated.

Based on an average generating output of 1.5 megawatts (of unreliable power) you would require over 33,300 wind generators.

As for solar power generation much research has been done over the decades and there are two types.

Solar thermal generation and Solar Electric generation but in each case they cannot generate large amounts of electricity.

Any clean, cheap energy is obviously welcomed but they would NEVER have the capability of replacing Thermal Power Generation. So get your heads out of the clouds, do some basic mathematics and look at the facts, - not going off with the fairies (or some would say the extreme greenies.)

We are all greenies in one form or another and care very much about our planet. The difference is most of us are realistic. Not in some idyllic utopia where everything can be made perfect by standing around holding a banner and being a general pain in the backside.

Here are some facts that will show how ridiculous this financial madness is that the government is following. Do the simple maths and see for yourselves.

According to the 'believers' the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in air over the last 50 years.

To put the percentage of Carbon Dioxide in air in a clearer perspective;

If you had a room 3.7 x 3.7 x 2.1 metres the area carbon dioxide would occupy in that room would be .25 x .25 x ..17m or the size of a large packet of cereal.

Australia emits 1% of the world's total carbon Dioxide and the government wants to reduce this by 20%t or reduce emissions by 0.2 % of the world's total CO2 emissions.

What effect will this have on existing CO2 levels?

By their own figures they state the CO2 in air has risen from .034% to .038% in 50 years.

Assuming this is correct, the world CO2 has increased in 50 years by...004%.

Per year that is .004 divided by 50 = ....00008%. (Getting confusing -but stay with me).

Of that because we only contribute 1% our emissions would cause CO2 to rise .00008 divided by 100 =...0000008%.

Of that 1%, we supposedly emit, the governments wants to reduce it by 20% which is 1/5th of .0000008 =...00000016% effect per year they would have on the world CO2 emissions based on their own figures.

That would equate to an area in the same room, as the size of a small pin.

For that they have gone crazy with the ridiculous trading schemes, Solar and Roofing Installations, Clean Coal Technology Renewable Energy, etc, etc.

How ridiculous it that?

The cost to the general public and industry will be enormous. Cripple and even closing some smaller businesses.

T.L. Cardwell
ratpoison is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2011, 09:53   #175 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: gold coast QLD australia
Age: 79
Posts: 1,350
Thankyou Rat Poison for posting such a interesting article, of course the Labor people will find holes in it, but as a bogan as Dutch Roll describes, (a disbeliever) I think it was a sensible and probably truthful article.
teresa green is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2011, 10:48   #176 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: PERTH,AUSTRALIA
Posts: 156
Pathetic attempt at a windup Peter. Could work with the young and gullible though.
RATpin is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2011, 11:09   #177 (permalink)


Probationary PPRuNer
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 2
The Great Global Warming Swindle

If you haven't already seen this, its a must!




This was a direct response to the Al Gore film.

jftt
justflythething is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2011, 15:02   #178 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 252
Herding Cats and Sceptics.

RATpin, teresa, other anti-science contributors. T. L. Cardwell is a power station worker. Apart from the obvious confused nonsense about steam from cooling towers and 96% thermal efficiency of his coal fired power stations, he has added nothing to the debate except his curious opinion. This subject cannot be understood on the basis of such tripe. The idea that burning fossil fuel can be done without CO2 emmissions should give you a clue to the verasity of his letter. Collecting or containing carbon and CO2 from a process by any method whatsoever, does not diminish the fact of it's production in the first place or solve the problem of it's disposal. Likewise, just because a popular 'letter to the editor' is 'going around as an email' or is repeated ad nauseum, does not give it any more substance as to it's value or correctness. The fact that so many people actually repeat, quote and forward such letters is not only an indictment of standards of scientific education in our schools, but also of the limited ability of so many to separate any form of fact from fiction or opinion. I, for instance, hold the opinion that 'god does not exist'. That opinion may have a large following by many others, but it doesn't have any scientific research or credibility to back it. My opinion on that subject is purely based on personal or borrowed anecdotal observations. It is possible that another opinion based also on anecdotal observations could arrive at exactly the opposite conclusion to mine, therefore suggesting 'that god does exist'. Look at the vast hordes of 'god botherers' and 'crystal gazers' peddling their beliefs from Abenaki shamanism to Zen Budhism or new-age spiritualism. All fun stuff if you are so inclined. However 'creationists', 'holy warriors' and 'snake-oil salesmen' are not so philosophically far apart. (Nor are oil industry executives who don't like 'science' which may cause consumers to shun their products in favour of more environmentally friendly energy. Lord Monkton is a hired gun for the oil industry and has been paid millions to muddy the waters with spurious arguments and fake scientific web sites. He personally is not qualified in any scientific discipline, though he does hold qualifications in 'The Classics' and marketing. His role in confusing scientific debate should not be underestimated. He has previously been a spin doctor for the Vatican and later managed the damage control for the Exxon Valdez oil spill. It was his expertise which saved Exxon billions of dollars in compensation and left many Alaskans in financial ruin. More recently his utterences on the BP Gulf oil spill have followed the same pattern.) If 'proof' doesn't involve scientific observation and measurements, it can be no more than a subjective or 'belief' based view. 'Flat Earthers' eventually went to ground under the weight of scientific evidence. If you can't understand how science works, start looking for a burrow now. You are going to need somewhere to hide your eventual and inevitable embarrassment. Sure scientific research has some hiccups and misinterpretations along the way. That is why peer review and cross referencing is so critical in reaching scientific concensus. But as the weight of evidence builds, knowledge is gained and made available for new determinations and thinking. Ignorance is so demeaning in an educated society. Swallowing every excuse for ignoring solid scientific findings is childish at best. And there is no point in placing scientific evidence before people who have a zealous and willful determination to ignore it. Looking in the wrong places for scientific research and discussion is laziness of the highest order and would never be tolerated by a trained researcher. The internet has few signposts and finding reputable sources is not automatically assured. It is a discipline in itself. Science is published in a very small group of web sites. Mischievous commentary and misrepresentation of those reports and discussions are sadly more common. It is the nature of the internet as an open forum that much of it's comment and material is at the very best, apocryphal. Scepticism is actually a scientific notion which holds unproven ideas to be nothing more than that until backed by clearly repeatable evidence. Some people contributing to this thread are claiming to be 'sceptics' when in fact they are devout adherents to a worship of 'scientific blindness'. Science is the system and force which is raising us out of the mysticism of prehistory. If you don't wish to be 'raised' that is your choice, but don't hold back those who are heading that way by deception and obstructionism. Science is not a political persuasion either, so keep your politics out of the mathmatics, chemistry and physics. If tea-leaves, tarrot cards and the mark-1 eyeball are all that reside in your toolbag, enjoy the illusion of your precious haven while you can. The 'Galileos' of our time are at your door.

Last edited by flyingfox; 24th Nov 2011 at 17:20. Reason: text errors, spelling, additional paragraph.
flyingfox is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2011, 15:29   #179 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,146
Al Gore and the IPCC shared a Nobel PR Prize.

My mistake...a Nobel Peace Prize.

I'm wondering how I can get one. Barack Obama was a virtual unknown and received one 4 days after taking office.

(Don't know how this comment slipped in here. I was responding to Frank's post below.)

Last edited by Lodown; 24th Nov 2011 at 15:39.
Lodown is offline  
Old 24th Nov 2011, 16:48   #180 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Hicksville, Alabama
Posts: 171
Peterc005 et al,

I'm asking this question in all seriousness. What are you doing to completely eliminate you and your family's carbon foot print.

I'm paraphrasing Tim Flannery here, but he stated that if no more man made CO2 was put into the atmosphere, it would take up to 1000 years for the CO2 to start coming down. The system is that slow. I'm assuming Tim Flannery knows what he is talking about, as he is a government employee hired to explain to the public the need for climate change action, and you all support the government taking action.

Now if I understand the message you and the government are telling us, then 1000 years will be way too late, and the earth will have runaway climate change. I think we all can say that the carbon tax in Australia will make very little difference to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This action is knowhere near enough as advised by Tim Flannery.

So I would expect you to lead by example and completely eliminate your carbon footprint. I'm interested in how you are going about this. For example, the airline industry is supposed to be one of the more carbon intensive industries (something like 3% of man made CO2 output), so it surprises me that Dutchroll has in his profile that he is a commercial pilot.

I know we all contribute to man made CO2, but if it's so urgent to take action, then surely you as people who have studied the science (you certainly sound like you have, and good on you if you have) then you will be leading by example?
kotoyebe is offline  
Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 02:54.


© 1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1