I have long been of the view that the only thing the ongoing debate about Climate Change (regardless of the "science") has been to close eyes/minds to the very real, present and easily observed ongoing degradation of our environment through continued pollution, thus, enabling industrial polluters (in particular) to keep raking in money, whilst destroying that which our species relies on for life.

Regardless of who eventually wins the AGW debate, the environment is still being trashed.

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/environment/gaia-just-turned-40-and-she-didnt-get-a-present/

There are many things that are being overlooked, however our Environmental regulators have a lot more power these days.  I gave an example in the Coal Generated power thread.

I like James Lovelock's Gaia Theory.

muso wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 9:08am:

There are many things that are being overlooked, however our Environmental regulators have a lot more power these days.  I gave an example in the Coal Generated power thread. I like James Lovelock's Gaia Theory.

I can't accept this sorry. Environment regulators are a toothless tigers often stacked by former industry players. They're just there to give the rest of us a warm feeling inside that somethings being done.  The Mexican gulf spill, Fukashima and you say you have confidence in our regulatory system. Please!!!! You have any idea of the enormity of the disaster at Fukashima. How many of those do you think that we as a species and our planet can bear?

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 9:21am:

muso wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 9:08am: There are many things that are being overlooked, however our Environmental regulators have a lot more power these days.  I gave an example in the Coal Generated power thread. I like James Lovelock's Gaia Theory. I can't accept this sorry. Environment regulators are a toothless tigers often stacked by former industry players. They're just there to give the rest of us a warm feeling inside that somethings being done.  The Mexican gulf spill, Fukashima and you say you have confidence in our regulatory system. Please!!!! You have any idea of the enormity of the disaster at Fukashima. How many of those do you think that we as a species and our planet can bear?

Now we're going to start a thread about Fukushima again. I don't see the point in that. It's a regional or even local issue, but let's leave it at that.

My comments on the Environmental Regulator come from working in Industry. I have noticed the tiger grow a few teeth in recent years (the last 10 years or so), although prior to that it was quite inept in most States except Victoria. 

The pressure on Hazardous Industry from the regulator is now enormous, but that's not necessarily from the environmental regulators. 

It seems to me that regardless of whether or not this particular tiger has teeth or not, rampant pollution continues in short.

It also seems, as per the OP that our ongoing AGW debate only serves one thing, big polluters do not have to take any significant action to curb their polluting. Hence whether the tiger has teeth or not, the polluting continues.

The other "message" to my mind is the oft overlooked/ignored or possibly just misunderstood idea that we live in a closed system, hence, ongoing destruction of said system will, at some stage, have a tipping point. That is a direct relationship to human interaction with our environment.

It seems to me wholly ironic the feet dragging that goes on in respect to making significant change all due to money. Once said tipping point is reached, no amount of money will fix that. I think it demonstrative of extreme short sightedness of our species, which is of course, contradictory of our overblown concept of ourselves being the paragon of animals.

Good post. Of course coming from industry, I know that discharge and emission licences are treated with a great deal of respect by Industry. I would have been hauled over the coals if I hadn't reported the most minor of excursions. Of course, the bigger the player, the more room for negotiation.

I don't believe that I was complicit with any serious environmental damage (apart from greenhouse gases) at any of the major industries I've worked for. In fact I have a clear conscience in that respect.

There is always a cost-benefit argument. Nothing we do in civilisation is totally risk free.

Hey Phemanderac

Carbon pricing will not stop corporations polluting our rivers, creeks and estuaries.

Or land fill or any other form of pollution.

All it will do is put a price on carbon dioxide and then it will depend on CO2 emissions continually rising for the market to stay healthy.

Now imagine if your super or other investments gets tied up in carbon credit derivatives and they suddenly have a bust.....????

muso you believe in gaia......??

that answers a lot of things................!!!!!!!

Ajax wrote on Oct 4^th, 2013 at 10:23am:

Hey Phemanderac Carbon pricing will not stop corporations polluting our rivers, creeks and estuaries. Or land fill or any other form of pollution. All it will do is put a price on carbon dioxide and then it will depend on CO2 emissions continually rising for the market to stay healthy. Now imagine if your super or other investments gets tied up in carbon credit derivatives and they suddenly have a bust.....???? muso you believe in gaia......?? that answers a lot of things................!!!!!!!

Not the Greek God, but the Gaia Theory, formerly called the Gaia hypothesis.  It might have been controversial in its day, but a lot of people are now thinking that way.

Richard Lindzen's Iris effect would have been a Gaia type mechanism. You might have to do some reading on the Gaia effect. There is nothing mystical about it.

Who was it that brought up the claim that 150ppm carbon dioxide would be slow low that plants would die off? Well it's not absolutely true, because the world has been there on several occasions during a number of glaciations and plant and animal life survived.

At the same time, it has some truth in it. It's a kind of half truth. At low CO2 concentrations, some plants photosynthesise very slowly, but it obviously did not shut down completely because there were still some forests during the coldest part of the glaciation. There were also huge areas of desert.

So yes, the Earth does self regulate to some extent. James Lovelock wrote a sequel to his original book. Do you know what it was called?    - The Revenge of Gaia.

I remind you of how the greens where formed (their roots) and what they stand for.


Quote:

In their 1996 manifesto, The Greens, Bob Brown and Peter Singer identify the origins of the Australian greens movement in two strands.............................. The modern Greens party however had an earlier origin in the green bans applied by the Builders Labourers Federation in the 1970s in New South Wales.[24] Indeed the visit to Australia by the German activist Petra Kelly in 1977 was influential in the foundation of the German Greens.[25] The then leader of the BLF, Jack Mundey, was subsequently invited to conferences in Europe and North America. Mundey, a Communist Party official and candidate, who led the militant New South Wales Builders Labourers Federation, described himself as “an ecological Marxist”.[26] Speaking years after the Communist Party folded, and a New Left party failed to gain support beyond Trotskyist and anarchist groupings, Mundey prophesied that “in the future there is a possibility of … what I’d call a Green Red future of socialism”.[27] In addition to Marx and Engels, Mundey was influenced by the overpopulation jeremiad of Paul Ehrlich.[28]............................... The Greens operate out of a set of ideological principles and beliefs that extend beyond the warm, cuddly environmentalism they wrap themselves in.[29] While “environmentalism” lies at the core of the Greens’ ideology, their policies, if ever enacted, would radically change the economic and social culture of Australia....................................... John Black has analysed Green voters over a series of elections. In a recent report, he categorises Green voters.[31] First, those who vote Green as their primary vote: This is the Don’s Party group that used to be in the ALP in the sixties and seventies: young university students or graduates, frequently working or still studying in academia, no kids, often gay, arts and drama type degrees or architecture where they specialise is designing environmentally friendly suburbs, agnostic or atheist, often US or Canadian refugees from capitalism, but well paid in professional consulting or media jobs.[32] These groups swung more heavily to the Greens in 2010: They were led by arts, media or architectural graduate twenty-somethings, atheists and agnostics, Kiwis, the highly mobile university student groups, gays and the Green family group, which is a professional or admin consulting couple with one child attending expensive private schools.[33]............................................. Many descriptions could be applied to the Greens, but none seems more accurate than Jack Mundey’s own description of “ecological Marxism”, which sums up the two core beliefs of the Greens. First, the environment or the ecology is to be placed before all else. This is spelt out in the first principle in the Greens Global Charter, to which the Australian Greens are subscribers: “We acknowledge that human beings are part of the natural world and we respect the specific values of all forms of life, including non-human species.”[34] Second, the Greens are Marxist in their philosophy, and display the same totalitarian tendencies of all previous forms of Marxism as a political movement. By totalitarian, I mean the subordination of the individual in the impulse to rid society of all elements that, in the eyes of the adherent, mar its perfection........................................ .... Let me expand. According to the Greens’ ideology, human dignity is neither inherent nor absolute, but relative.[35] Humans are only one species amongst others. As Brown and Singer write: “We hold that the dominant ethic is indefensible because it focuses only on human beings and on human beings who are living now, leaving out the interests of others who are not of our species, or not of our generation.”[36] Elsewhere, they equate humans with animals: The revolutionary element in Green ethics is its challenge to us to see ourselves in universal terms ... I must take into account the interests of others, on the same footing as my own. This is true, whether these others are Victorians or Queenslanders, Australians or Rwandans, or even the nonhuman animals whose habitat is destroyed when a forest is destroyed.[37] What is revolutionary about this statement is not that the interests of another should be considered in an ethical judgment. Judeo-Christian belief extols consideration of others, as does Kant’s Golden Rule. Burke wrote of society being a compact across generations. What is revolutionary is the equation of humans and animals. Peter Singer expands these notions in his other works on animal liberation. He charges that humans are guilty of “speciesism”, that is, preferring their own species over all others. It leads him to argue in favour of infanticide and doctor-assisted suicide on one hand; and bestiality on the other, provided there is mutual consent![38] Peter Singer’s influence is evident in the Greens’ ideology. The author of a series of books, including Animal Liberation, Singer not only co-authored the Greens’ manifesto with Bob Brown, but stood as a candidate for the party in the Kooyong in 1994, and subsequently as a Senate candidate.[39] Read more here http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2011/1/the-greens-agenda-in-their-own-words#_ednref71

Ajax wrote on Oct 4^th, 2013 at 10:23am:

Hey Phemanderac Carbon pricing will not stop corporations polluting our rivers, creeks and estuaries. Or land fill or any other form of pollution. All it will do is put a price on carbon dioxide and then it will depend on CO2 emissions continually rising for the market to stay healthy. Now imagine if your super or other investments gets tied up in carbon credit derivatives and they suddenly have a bust.....???? muso you believe in gaia......?? that answers a lot of things................!!!!!!!

Um I don't think at any point have I indicated anything about carbon pricing. In point of fact, my entire driver in this thread was to look at the far more obvious reality that if we continue to pollute then there will be a tipping point. Will that be carbon, will it be climate related or simply just slow poisoning? I make no claim.

The simple reality is that debates about AGW, global warming and/or carbon pricing in effect change nothing. Just a lot of hot air (see what I did there?) amounting to no significant positive change.

We do live in a closed environment.

Consequently it is base stupidity and gross ignorance to continue soiling it. Worse still is the delicate balancing act that life (in general) plays in a somewhat hostile Universe. Bottom line, if we get this wrong, which to my mind we are excelling at (getting it wrong) then we won't get an option b, in short there is no PLANet B.....

By all means argue about a tax if you like, if it makes you feel better, but, bare in mind, it is our species that is the single worst destroyer of the natural environment.

Sorry too mate, Quadrant is just a wee bit too ideologically based for me to have any confidence in it.

Just being up front with you. I think the point that Singer (who I don't totally agree with) is making, by the way, is that there are more than enough humans on the planet, so a few dying off won't be that cataclysmic in the big picture. If that equates to arguing in favour of infanticide (which actually occurs in nature) or the other charges so be it. Bottom line is, and the argument that Quadrant appears to be opposed to is the idea that we (humans) are simply animals. Tough break, but we are just that, animals and apart from our own over inflated egos telling us otherwise, we are no better, worse, more or less important than other species. Yet, we behave otherwise.

Big polluters LOL, there are no big polluters, just lots of little ones some of which try to assuage their guilt by claiming their are big polluters  ;D

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 6:04pm:

Big polluters LOL, there are no big polluters, just lots of little ones some of which try to assuage their guilt by claiming their are big polluters  ;D

LOL, wrong.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-15-worst-companies-for-the-environment-2009-9#7-american-electric-power-9

At least the "guilt" part was partly correct.

What was particularly disturbing here is the number of "big" polluters who go to great lengths to mislead the public into the false belief that they are not big polluters and are actually environmental protectors.

A great demonstration of guilt, and an excellent piece of evidence that it is widely known (Particularly amongst the big polluters) that what they do is harmful, dangerous and at some point will be unrepairable. Yet a twat brained debate goes on and on to little or no effect whilst they continue their destructive (but highly profitable) practices unabated.

Clearly, they do not need to go to such lengths of deception (these big polluters) because there are plenty gullible enough to believe that everything is ok and we could not possibly damage our environment.

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 5:13pm:

Sorry too mate, Quadrant is just a wee bit too ideologically based for me to have any confidence in it. Just being up front with you. I think the point that Singer (who I don't totally agree with) is making, by the way, is that there are more than enough humans on the planet, so a few dying off won't be that cataclysmic in the big picture.

Depends which few die off. There is a huge discrepancy between citizens of different countries with respect to carbon footprints and damage to the planet.

Take for example the USA, it makes up about 5% of the global population and yet consumes about 1/3 of the worlds resources and generates about 30% of the worlds pollution and waste.

Distribution and access is not equal and has always presented problems for human civilizations.

As finite resources become scarce, humans can either adapt their social structures and technology to exploit renewable and more equitable systems, or they can perpetuate wars and shrink, maybe even vanish.

Interesting to note that a planet with about 1 billion Americans has a similar ecological foot print as about 9 billion average Africans or about 6 billion chinese.

So when people refer to population explosions and global problems they tend to view each global citizen equally which they aren't.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 6^th, 2013 at 8:25am:

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 5:13pm: Sorry too mate, Quadrant is just a wee bit too ideologically based for me to have any confidence in it. Just being up front with you. I think the point that Singer (who I don't totally agree with) is making, by the way, is that there are more than enough humans on the planet, so a few dying off won't be that cataclysmic in the big picture. Depends which few die off. There is a huge discrepancy between citizens of different countries with respect to carbon footprints and damage to the planet. Take for example the USA, it makes up about 5% of the global population and yet consumes about 1/3 of the worlds resources and generates about 30% of the worlds pollution and waste. Distribution and access is not equal and has always presented problems for human civilizations. As finite resources become scarce, humans can either adapt their social structures and technology to exploit renewable and more equitable systems, or they can perpetuate wars and shrink, maybe even vanish. Interesting to note that a planet with about 1 billion Americans has a similar ecological foot print as about 9 billion average Africans or about 6 billion chinese. So when people refer to population explosions and global problems they tend to view each global citizen equally which they aren't.

The unfairness of the divide between rich/poor, access/non access I think will always be there. However, that is the way things are, no, the way we (our species) have made them. I make no claim as to what is fair, but, the harsh reality of the comment is, as an entire species we are prolific and, as such, can apparently afford some losses.

The point still stands, a few dying off won't be cataclysmic.

Your point is valid to, as there is bound to be some inherent unfairness in who dies off. Let's face it though, no matter who, some would claim unfairness anyway....

What my concern is though, that rampant destruction of our environment (the only environment that we can be sustained in) may cause far more wide spread loss of life. Not only human life, but the other critters that we seem to think exist for us to mess with. We will be the arrogant architects of our own demise and many other species to boot. We overstretch our rights a wee bit in this.

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 7:41am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 6th, 2013 at 8:25am: Phemanderac wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 5:13pm: Sorry too mate, Quadrant is just a wee bit too ideologically based for me to have any confidence in it. Just being up front with you. I think the point that Singer (who I don't totally agree with) is making, by the way, is that there are more than enough humans on the planet, so a few dying off won't be that cataclysmic in the big picture. Depends which few die off. There is a huge discrepancy between citizens of different countries with respect to carbon footprints and damage to the planet. Take for example the USA, it makes up about 5% of the global population and yet consumes about 1/3 of the worlds resources and generates about 30% of the worlds pollution and waste. Distribution and access is not equal and has always presented problems for human civilizations. As finite resources become scarce, humans can either adapt their social structures and technology to exploit renewable and more equitable systems, or they can perpetuate wars and shrink, maybe even vanish. Interesting to note that a planet with about 1 billion Americans has a similar ecological foot print as about 9 billion average Africans or about 6 billion chinese. So when people refer to population explosions and global problems they tend to view each global citizen equally which they aren't. The unfairness of the divide between rich/poor, access/non access I think will always be there. However, that is the way things are, no, the way we (our species) have made them. I make no claim as to what is fair, but, the harsh reality of the comment is, as an entire species we are prolific and, as such, can apparently afford some losses. The point still stands, a few dying off won't be cataclysmic. Your point is valid to, as there is bound to be some inherent unfairness in who dies off. Let's face it though, no matter who, some would claim unfairness anyway.... What my concern is though, that rampant destruction of our environment (the only environment that we can be sustained in) may cause far more wide spread loss of life. Not only human life, but the other critters that we seem to think exist for us to mess with. We will be the arrogant architects of our own demise and many other species to boot. We overstretch our rights a wee bit in this.

...the point is that the people most likely to be casualties or "die off" as you describe it, aren't the people with the extreme environmentally destructive foot print.

so the problem remains even if the population decreases

I see the solution as one of a revolution in the way the west lives, and an acknowledgement by the developing nations and the third world that the current western ideology of corporatized short term profits at all costs and the individual being paramount in everything, is not a sustainable way to live.

In fact the west can learn a lot about sustainability and respect for the environment and ecosystems from the third world and many parts of the developing world. After all it used to value those standards and ethics.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 8:47am:

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 7:41am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 6th, 2013 at 8:25am: Phemanderac wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 5:13pm: Sorry too mate, Quadrant is just a wee bit too ideologically based for me to have any confidence in it. Just being up front with you. I think the point that Singer (who I don't totally agree with) is making, by the way, is that there are more than enough humans on the planet, so a few dying off won't be that cataclysmic in the big picture. Depends which few die off. There is a huge discrepancy between citizens of different countries with respect to carbon footprints and damage to the planet. Take for example the USA, it makes up about 5% of the global population and yet consumes about 1/3 of the worlds resources and generates about 30% of the worlds pollution and waste. Distribution and access is not equal and has always presented problems for human civilizations. As finite resources become scarce, humans can either adapt their social structures and technology to exploit renewable and more equitable systems, or they can perpetuate wars and shrink, maybe even vanish. Interesting to note that a planet with about 1 billion Americans has a similar ecological foot print as about 9 billion average Africans or about 6 billion chinese. So when people refer to population explosions and global problems they tend to view each global citizen equally which they aren't. The unfairness of the divide between rich/poor, access/non access I think will always be there. However, that is the way things are, no, the way we (our species) have made them. I make no claim as to what is fair, but, the harsh reality of the comment is, as an entire species we are prolific and, as such, can apparently afford some losses. The point still stands, a few dying off won't be cataclysmic. Your point is valid to, as there is bound to be some inherent unfairness in who dies off. Let's face it though, no matter who, some would claim unfairness anyway.... What my concern is though, that rampant destruction of our environment (the only environment that we can be sustained in) may cause far more wide spread loss of life. Not only human life, but the other critters that we seem to think exist for us to mess with. We will be the arrogant architects of our own demise and many other species to boot. We overstretch our rights a wee bit in this. ...the point is that the people most likely to be casualties or "die off" as you describe it, aren't the people with the extreme environmentally destructive foot print. so the problem remains even if the population decreases I see the solution as one of a revolution in the way the west lives, and an acknowledgement by the developing nations and the third world that the current western ideology of corporatized short term profits at all costs and the individual being paramount in everything, is not a sustainable way to live. In fact the west can learn a lot about sustainability and respect for the environment and ecosystems from the third world and many parts of the developing world. After all it used to value those standards and ethics.

The "point" is not lost on me mate. I reckon I did address that in fact, I did not say the outcome would be either fair or for that matter a solution....

It is merely an observation of how things are shaping up.

To be fair as well, history kind of supports the more unfair outcome. Those in developing countries after all have little or no voice in the developed (and destructive) areas of our population. As to a revolution, whilst I don't disagree with you that this is most likely what would need to occur for any significant, long term and sustainable change to be implemented that would require far more socio - political engagement from those of us living in the (supposedly) free bits of the planet. Sadly though, I think that the reality is far too many of us have it far to comfortable to find it easy or appropriate to rock the boat, as it were. Most of us have it ok, to make a revolutionary change would require a degree of self sacrifice I don't believe that we as a species (particularly us softened up sponges of the developed world) have the capacity, courage or motivation to change.

Worse still, despite the ones dying off not being responsible for the degradation of our environment (at least in any hugely significant way) that is the way that our species has demonstrably worked throughout history. Good guys very rarely finish first, as it were.

Please do not mistake my comments for supporting this as being right, proper or a good thing though. I am merely expressing my somewhat cynical opinion of how our species generally operates en masse.

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 9:48am:

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 8:47am: Phemanderac wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 7:41am: Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 6th, 2013 at 8:25am: Phemanderac wrote on Oct 5th, 2013 at 5:13pm: . . . . Please do not mistake my comments for supporting this as being right, proper or a good thing though. I am merely expressing my somewhat cynical opinion of how our species generally operates en masse.

That philosophy is a miss interpretation of Darwinianism. Economists often cite Darwinian natural selection to somehow justify their draconian immoral economic models that are invariably based upon short term profit and material greed etc.,

If one looks carefully at how life evolved and the critical factors that influence the robustness of life as a whole, one will see that the most important factors are cooperation within and between species, balance, moderation etc.

Some refer to this notion as the Gaia theory. This does not mean that you don't have species becoming extinct and death within species. These are necessary and occur frequently.

There is ample evidence that demonstrates a natural instinct to cooperate (within and between species).

Its in our genetic makeup to look after one another and cooperate - which makes us stronger as a species. This is evident in many other species.

The Modern systems of corporatized (USA) or State run (China) capitalism go against this natural instinct to feel empathy for your fellow human and other species and to cooperate.

....explains why we need extensive propaganda machines and techniques which use fear and force to bash this natural instinct out of us.

cheers

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 10:03am:

It seems to me that regardless of whether or not this particular tiger has teeth or not, rampant pollution continues in short.

Exactly, localised environment degradation will affect a lot more people, a lot sooner than climate change.

Over population and pollution are the elephants in the room, not climate change.

FriYAY wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 12:50pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 10:03am: It seems to me that regardless of whether or not this particular tiger has teeth or not, rampant pollution continues in short. Exactly, localised environment degradation will affect a lot more people, a lot sooner than climate change. Over population and pollution are the elephants in the room, not climate change.

What do you suggest we do find the nearest bridge and jump off....LOL.......?????

You first..................!!!!

Ajax wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 12:53pm:

FriYAY wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 12:50pm: Phemanderac wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 10:03am: It seems to me that regardless of whether or not this particular tiger has teeth or not, rampant pollution continues in short. Exactly, localised environment degradation will affect a lot more people, a lot sooner than climate change. Over population and pollution are the elephants in the room, not climate change. What do you suggest we do find the nearest bridge and jump off....LOL.......????? You first..................!!!!

Wow, what a stupid dam thing to say, kudos……

FriYAY wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 12:55pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 12:53pm: FriYAY wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 12:50pm: Phemanderac wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 10:03am: It seems to me that regardless of whether or not this particular tiger has teeth or not, rampant pollution continues in short. Exactly, localised environment degradation will affect a lot more people, a lot sooner than climate change. Over population and pollution are the elephants in the room, not climate change. What do you suggest we do find the nearest bridge and jump off....LOL.......????? You first..................!!!! Wow, what a stupid dam thing to say, kudos……

Sorry, but when I hear people talking about overpopulation as the elephant in the room I thin that's pretty smacking stupid too....???

What do you suggest then..........!!!!!!!

Ajax wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 12:53pm:

FriYAY wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 12:50pm: Phemanderac wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 10:03am: It seems to me that regardless of whether or not this particular tiger has teeth or not, rampant pollution continues in short. Exactly, localised environment degradation will affect a lot more people, a lot sooner than climate change. Over population and pollution are the elephants in the room, not climate change. What do you suggest we do find the nearest bridge and jump off....LOL.......????? You first..................!!!!

just pay your taxes batman.

Remember over 96% of all innovations and inventions (including the computer you are using and the INTERNET itself) were tax payer funded.

We wouldn't want to go back and live in the caves now would we Mr Batman?

Ajax wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 1:01pm:

... when I hear people talking about overpopulation as the elephant in the room I thin that's pretty smacking stupid too....???

Why so?

If memory serves (in very rough terms):
The human population of the planet reached 1 billion about the middle of the 19th century.
It reached 2 billion about the middle of the 20th century.
By the end of the 20th century, it was about 6 billion.

In short, the population doubled in a century, then tripled in half that time. Anyone with a grasp of mathematics will see a problem here.


Ajax wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 1:01pm:

What do you suggest then..........!!!!!!!

Nature has a history of dealing with overpopulation. We have a choice:
- control our population or;
- let nature to take its course.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 1:20pm:

just pay your taxes batman.

Hey chimp I do pay my taxes, but I also want to know where they go and how they're used...?????


Quote:

Remember over 96% of all innovations and inventions (including the computer you are using and the INTERNET itself) were tax payer funded.

And what is your point that taxpayer dollars will save us all from the CO2 phenomenon that will destroy life as we know it.....????

Seriously chimp do you honestly think, if manmade CO2 posed such a threat to our existence that governments would legislate for carbon taxes and ETS systems on wall street to save us.......LOL......???


Quote:

We wouldn't want to go back and live in the caves now would we Mr Batman?

By condemning fossil fuel energy which is suppose to be a cheap source of energy at the finger tips of both the rich and the poor what else is left.

Just because the pigs at the top have had an illuminating thought that cheap energy should be a thing of the past.

And the masses should be made to pay through the nose because of some fabricated crises they perceived like the AGW religion.

And then pumped billions of dollars into the vehicle that would appeal to the caring nature of most humans eg. look at you......!!!!

This is exactly where they would want us to be, back in the caveman days, living as surfs and serving our lords.

Wake up to yourself FFS.............!!

# wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 1:45pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 1:01pm: ... when I hear people talking about overpopulation as the elephant in the room I thin that's pretty smacking stupid too....??? Why so? If memory serves (in very rough terms): The human population of the planet reached 1 billion about the middle of the 19th century. It reached 2 billion about the middle of the 20th century. By the end of the 20th century, it was about 6 billion. In short, the population doubled in a century, then tripled in half that time. Anyone with a grasp of mathematics will see a problem here. Ajax wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 1:01pm: What do you suggest then..........!!!!!!! Nature has a history of dealing with overpopulation. We have a choice: - control our population or; - let nature to take its course.

Maybe you and Prince Phillip can exchange notes...!!!!

http://i40.tinypic.com/2rf6kpk.png


Quote:

"In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, in order to contribute something to solve overpopulation." Prince Phillip

# wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 1:45pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 1:01pm: ... when I hear people talking about overpopulation as the elephant in the room I thin that's pretty smacking stupid too....??? Why so? If memory serves (in very rough terms): The human population of the planet reached 1 billion about the middle of the 19th century. It reached 2 billion about the middle of the 20th century. By the end of the 20th century, it was about 6 billion. In short, the population doubled in a century, then tripled in half that time. Anyone with a grasp of mathematics will see a problem here. Ajax wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 1:01pm: What do you suggest then..........!!!!!!! Nature has a history of dealing with overpopulation. We have a choice: - control our population or; - let nature to take its course.

Why thanks, saves me time writting it.... ;)

FriYAY wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 1:56pm:

# wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 1:45pm: Ajax wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 1:01pm: ... when I hear people talking about overpopulation as the elephant in the room I thin that's pretty smacking stupid too....??? Why so? If memory serves (in very rough terms): The human population of the planet reached 1 billion about the middle of the 19th century. It reached 2 billion about the middle of the 20th century. By the end of the 20th century, it was about 6 billion. In short, the population doubled in a century, then tripled in half that time. Anyone with a grasp of mathematics will see a problem here. Ajax wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 1:01pm: What do you suggest then..........!!!!!!! Nature has a history of dealing with overpopulation. We have a choice: - control our population or; - let nature to take its course. Why thanks, saves me time writting it.... ;)

I can sympathise with Phillips reincarnation desires. Except I prefer a very targeted virus - one that only seems to infect Royalty

FriYAY wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 12:50pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 10:03am: It seems to me that regardless of whether or not this particular tiger has teeth or not, rampant pollution continues in short. Exactly, localised environment degradation will affect a lot more people, a lot sooner than climate change. Over population and pollution are the elephants in the room, not climate change.

....climate change is a negative externality!!

as for batman: lol, the biggest joke on the net!!

  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

FriYAY wrote on Oct 7^th, 2013 at 12:50pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 10:03am: It seems to me that regardless of whether or not this particular tiger has teeth or not, rampant pollution continues in short. Exactly, localised environment degradation will affect a lot more people, a lot sooner than climate change. Over population and pollution are the elephants in the room, not climate change.

First climate change has always been with us form day dot, otherwise the Earth would still be a molten rock of lava.

The issue is anthropogenic global warming in other words are human emissions of CO2 causing all this warming..???

The climate is always changing whether humans have a influence or not.

Second pricing carbon will not stop corporations dumping chemicals into our rivers oceans and land.

You guys seem to think pricing carbon will stop all forms of pollution and roll pollution into one neat bundle.

No you are wrong pricing carbon will only create a market on wall street to trade carbon credit derivatives.

It will not stop any other form of pollution, and I doubt very much it will reduce human Co2 emissions.

So when you say pollution are you talking about all forms of pollution or just human emissions of CO2....??????

Ajax wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 7:55am:

FriYAY wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 12:50pm: Phemanderac wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 10:03am: It seems to me that regardless of whether or not this particular tiger has teeth or not, rampant pollution continues in short. Exactly, localised environment degradation will affect a lot more people, a lot sooner than climate change. Over population and pollution are the elephants in the room, not climate change. First climate change has always been with us form day dot, otherwise the Earth would still be a molten rock of lava. The issue is anthropogenic global warming in other words are human emissions of CO2 causing all this warming..??? The climate is always changing whether humans have a influence or not. Second pricing carbon will not stop corporations dumping chemicals into our rivers oceans and land. You guys seem to think pricing carbon will stop all forms of pollution and roll pollution into one neat bundle. No you are wrong pricing carbon will only create a market on wall street to trade carbon credit derivatives. It will not stop any other form of pollution, and I doubt very much it will reduce human Co2 emissions. So when you say pollution are you talking about all forms of pollution or just human emissions of CO2....??????

AGW Denialism 101 - been browsing the crack pot web sites I see

lol

muso wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 9:08am:

There are many things that are being overlooked, however our Environmental regulators have a lot more power these days.  I gave an example in the Coal Generated power thread. I like James Lovelock's Gaia Theory.

You DO??? Hmmm that's amusing, sorry muso, but the idea that the Earth is a living organism in it's own right, tends to demolish the whole AGW idea.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 1:23pm:

muso wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 9:08am: There are many things that are being overlooked, however our Environmental regulators have a lot more power these days.  I gave an example in the Coal Generated power thread. I like James Lovelock's Gaia Theory. You DO??? Hmmm that's amusing, sorry muso, but the idea that the Earth is a living organism in it's own right, tends to demolish the whole AGW idea.

For us humans it may mean that a Gaia response threatens our very existence

Gaia theory simply implies that numerous biological and non biological system interact and act as one large system. There is a narrow band of operating conditions which the this large system self regulates. This does not mean that you can do whatever you like to the system and it will go back to equilibrium. Its very much based upon dynamic changes and equilibrium shifts over time as conditions vary or if you get a disturbance - but on a large scale involving biological and non biological systems/factors

Ajax wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 7:55am:

FriYAY wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 12:50pm: Phemanderac wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 10:03am: It seems to me that regardless of whether or not this particular tiger has teeth or not, rampant pollution continues in short. Exactly, localised environment degradation will affect a lot more people, a lot sooner than climate change. Over population and pollution are the elephants in the room, not climate change. First climate change has always been with us form day dot, otherwise the Earth would still be a molten rock of lava. The issue is anthropogenic global warming in other words are human emissions of CO2 causing all this warming..??? The climate is always changing whether humans have a influence or not. Second pricing carbon will not stop corporations dumping chemicals into our rivers oceans and land. You guys seem to think pricing carbon will stop all forms of pollution and roll pollution into one neat bundle. No you are wrong pricing carbon will only create a market on wall street to trade carbon credit derivatives. It will not stop any other form of pollution, and I doubt very much it will reduce human Co2 emissions. So when you say pollution are you talking about all forms of pollution or just human emissions of CO2....??????

Actually the science that supports AGW acknowledges historic climate variation, curiously enough the term for it is "climate variation".... So that explains that stuff that has been occurring since "day dot", remarkable.

So this "issue" about CO2 is still a valid theoretical issue, because, humans interaction does cause changes to the natural variations that occur. The real issue is whether or not this will have a long term impact. Now this is where the serious division comes in. Bottom line, if we (humans) do accept that our actions might cause some damage then we will have to accept some harsh truths about big changes we may need to make. Of course, we can ignore this stuff and let it be someone else's problem.

I am not sure if I am one of the "you guys" you speak of, however, I have been fairly clear I think that I don't necessarily agree that a price will fix anything. However, on the other side of that then is that to make changes, much more severe actions would need to be implemented and to be honest, I don't think we are made of the kind of stuff with the integrity to make these changes. At least judging form the debate...

So when I say pollution I am talking all forms of pollution. BUT in particularly massive amounts of pollution, cause all animals eat, sh1t and leave a carcass to degrade when they die and I realise some inane pedant may well go down that road. Let's be clear though, that most certainly does include CO2 though.

To my mind just as many "sceptic (denial)" facts have also been widely discredited so, from my perspective, the genuine science has been derailed by the debaters of both ilks, hence I come back to asking what are we actually doing about pollution. The answer to that though is basically, well, nothing much but it is ok because a minority on the planet are greatly profiting from the ongoing degradation of our environment.

By the way, that is also why I chose the particular words for the title of this thread, it's all about the other issues being ignored...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 1:23pm:

muso wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 9:08am: There are many things that are being overlooked, however our Environmental regulators have a lot more power these days.  I gave an example in the Coal Generated power thread. I like James Lovelock's Gaia Theory. You DO??? Hmmm that's amusing, sorry muso, but the idea that the Earth is a living organism in it's own right, tends to demolish the whole AGW idea.

I am curious how you came to this conclusion. Do you think living things can't interfere and put at risk other living things?

I also find the idea of religion curious in all of this.

I acknowledge some ignorance to things to do with religion, however, I make a few assumption, namely;

A person claiming to be religious (regardless of which cult) has a belief in God/s. That would also I think generally mean a love for their God/s.

To my knowledge, most religions have some kind of creation myth attached to their belief system. Therefore, their God/s whom they love, created them and the very planet that will sustain their life.

Yet there seems no issue of faith when it comes to people trashing one of the most important and precious Gifts that their God/s provided for them.

In short, I am amazed that there are not more devout people up in arms about the harm being done to their environment. Amazingly there are many who participate in the destruction with care free abandon....

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 1:23pm:

muso wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 9:08am: There are many things that are being overlooked, however our Environmental regulators have a lot more power these days.  I gave an example in the Coal Generated power thread. I like James Lovelock's Gaia Theory. You DO??? Hmmm that's amusing, sorry muso, but the idea that the Earth is a living organism in it's own right, tends to demolish the whole AGW idea.

OK. You don't understand. That was a strawman on your part.


Quote:

The Gaia hypothesis says that the temperature, oxidation state, acidity, and certain aspects of the rocks and waters are kept constant, and that this homeostasis is maintained by active feedback processes operated automatically and unconsciously by the biota.

- James Lovelock, The Ages of Gaia

Source - University of Michigan
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/Gaia/

Nowadays, it is actually taken seriously by Earth Sciences professionals. It isn't necessarily accepted holus bolus, but some aspects of it are interesting. I like it mainly because it's an interesting concept.   

muso wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 3:25pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 1:23pm: muso wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 9:08am: There are many things that are being overlooked, however our Environmental regulators have a lot more power these days.  I gave an example in the Coal Generated power thread. I like James Lovelock's Gaia Theory. You DO??? Hmmm that's amusing, sorry muso, but the idea that the Earth is a living organism in it's own right, tends to demolish the whole AGW idea. OK. You don't understand. That was a strawman on your part. Quote: The Gaia hypothesis says that the temperature, oxidation state, acidity, and certain aspects of the rocks and waters are kept constant, and that this homeostasis is maintained by active feedback processes operated automatically and unconsciously by the biota. - James Lovelock, The Ages of Gaia Source - University of Michigan http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/Gaia/ Nowadays, it is actually taken seriously by Earth Sciences professionals. It isn't necessarily accepted holus bolus, but some aspects of it are interesting. I like it mainly because it's an interesting concept.

Actually I DO understand it...However, IF the Earth (and/or the entire biosphere) is an 'aware' entity, or even a quasi-aware entity,(or even a complex system at reacts to ALL parts/actions of the various components of the system), then wouldn't 'human' behavior be a natural, or integral part of the system??

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 3:45pm:

muso wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 3:25pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 1:23pm: muso wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 9:08am: There are many things that are being overlooked, however our Environmental regulators have a lot more power these days.  I gave an example in the Coal Generated power thread. I like James Lovelock's Gaia Theory. You DO??? Hmmm that's amusing, sorry muso, but the idea that the Earth is a living organism in it's own right, tends to demolish the whole AGW idea. OK. You don't understand. That was a strawman on your part. Quote: The Gaia hypothesis says that the temperature, oxidation state, acidity, and certain aspects of the rocks and waters are kept constant, and that this homeostasis is maintained by active feedback processes operated automatically and unconsciously by the biota. - James Lovelock, The Ages of Gaia Source - University of Michigan http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/Gaia/ Nowadays, it is actually taken seriously by Earth Sciences professionals. It isn't necessarily accepted holus bolus, but some aspects of it are interesting. I like it mainly because it's an interesting concept.    Actually I DO understand it...However, IF the Earth (and/or the entire biosphere) is an 'aware' entity, or even a quasi-aware entity,(or even a complex system at reacts to ALL parts/actions of the various components of the system), then wouldn't 'human' behavior be a natural, or integral part of the system??

Sort of like a virus you mean?

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 4:13pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 3:45pm: muso wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 3:25pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 1:23pm: muso wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 9:08am: There are many things that are being overlooked, however our Environmental regulators have a lot more power these days.  I gave an example in the Coal Generated power thread. I like James Lovelock's Gaia Theory. You DO??? Hmmm that's amusing, sorry muso, but the idea that the Earth is a living organism in it's own right, tends to demolish the whole AGW idea. OK. You don't understand. That was a strawman on your part. Quote: The Gaia hypothesis says that the temperature, oxidation state, acidity, and certain aspects of the rocks and waters are kept constant, and that this homeostasis is maintained by active feedback processes operated automatically and unconsciously by the biota. - James Lovelock, The Ages of Gaia Source - University of Michigan http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/Gaia/ Nowadays, it is actually taken seriously by Earth Sciences professionals. It isn't necessarily accepted holus bolus, but some aspects of it are interesting. I like it mainly because it's an interesting concept.    Actually I DO understand it...However, IF the Earth (and/or the entire biosphere) is an 'aware' entity, or even a quasi-aware entity,(or even a complex system at reacts to ALL parts/actions of the various components of the system), then wouldn't 'human' behavior be a natural, or integral part of the system?? Sort of like a virus you mean?

No, more like an intelligent entity..

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 4:13pm:

Sort of like a virus you mean?

If humans are a virus on the Earth what does that make you and me........germs........?????......LMFAO....!!!!!!.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 3:45pm:

Actually I DO understand it...However, IF the Earth (and/or the entire biosphere) is an 'aware' entity, or even a quasi-aware entity,(or even a complex system at reacts to ALL parts/actions of the various components of the system), then wouldn't 'human' behavior be a natural, or integral part of the system??

Not even quasi aware. Which part of unconsciously don't you understand?

Look, it's a bit like the biological equivalent of Le Chatelier's principle. The Earth's biota is an ecosystem on a huge scale, and it has been like that, continuously adapting since the beginnings of life itself. 

Of course you can break ecosystems. Let's say that we're silly enough to keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere until we reach a stage where our enormous population suffers massive decline as a result, you could say that's an example of the Gaia principle in action.

Even as we pump CO2 into the atmosphere, some natural compensation is taking place - there is evidence that some vegetation will thrive, including phytoplankton, at least until the CO2 levels get beyond about 450 ppm or so. This vegetation will "try to" redress the balance by processing the CO2 and producing Oxygen through photosynthesis.

- but there are limits.

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 3:10pm:

Actually the science that supports AGW acknowledges historic climate variation, curiously enough the term for it is "climate variation".... So that explains that stuff that has been occurring since "day dot", remarkable.

They only support hand picked proxy data, have you ever heard them say that we once had 20 times the amount of CO2 we have today in our atmosphere and life flourished on Earth....????


Quote:

So this "issue" about CO2 is still a valid theoretical issue, because, humans interaction does cause changes to the natural variations that occur.

The dispute is how much is human induced...????


Quote:

The real issue is whether or not this will have a long term impact. Now this is where the serious division comes in. Bottom line, if we (humans) do accept that our actions might cause some damage then we will have to accept some harsh truths about big changes we may need to make.

That's why sceptics are up in arms because the science of the IPCC and other alarmist groups that all the warming is due to human emissions of CO2 is snake oil at best.

And governments around the world are implementing ridiculous carbon taxes & ETS systems for something that is based on the IPCC's and others opinion rather than cold hard scientific facts.


Quote:

Of course, we can ignore this stuff and let it be someone else's problem.

I'm sure that if the pseudo science of the IPCC had some sort of credibility the individual scientists that are now pointing out their mistakes would be saying the same and their would be no argument.


Quote:

I am not sure if I am one of the "you guys" you speak of, however, I have been fairly clear I think that I don't necessarily agree that a price will fix anything.

I don't think any sane person who was told the world will come to an end as we know it, because of human CO2 emissions.

And then gets told to fix the problem we have to create a $2 to $10 trillion dollar carbon credit derivatives market on wall street would believe the crises is true in the first place.


Quote:

However, on the other side of that then is that to make changes, much more severe actions would need to be implemented and to be honest.

What about if the AGW hypothesis is dead wrong with all the doomsday stuff......????


Quote:

I don't think we are made of the kind of stuff with the integrity to make these changes. At least judging form the debate...

If scientific evidence points that way and we have no other choice then what can we do......!!!!!!!

But if we are so close to the point of no return and governments tell us a new market on wall street will save us all, then I would say something is not right here....!!!!


Quote:

So when I say pollution I am talking all forms of pollution. BUT in particularly massive amounts of pollution, cause all animals eat, sh1t and leave a carcass to degrade when they die and I realise some inane pedant may well go down that road. Let's be clear though, that most certainly does include CO2 though.

The carbon tax / ETS ONLY addresses human CO2 emissions......nothing else............!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Quote:

To my mind just as many "sceptic (denial)" facts have also been widely discredited so

Such as......................?????


Quote:

from my perspective, the genuine science has been derailed by the debaters of both ilks,

Not in my mind............................????

The IPCC is a political body that distributes science, which is re-written in political terms............!!!!!!!


Quote:

hence I come back to asking what are we actually doing about pollution.

We might have to have another tax for the companies dumping chemicals in our rivers, oceans and land.

Because the carbon tax / ETS doesn't cover these other forms of pollution................????

How about a chemical tax...................!!!!!!!


Quote:

The answer to that though is basically, well, nothing much but it is ok because a minority on the planet are greatly profiting from the ongoing degradation of our environment.

These very same people are the ones that want you to pay through the nose for energy at your finger tips through a tax on the air we breath.


Quote:

By the way, that is also why I chose the particular words for the title of this thread, it's all about the other issues being ignored...

Sceptics don't ignore anything, its just that the other forms of pollution aren't covered by the carbon tax / ETS.

That's why they never come up...........!!!!!

Ajax wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 5:31pm:

They only support hand picked proxy data, (1) have you ever heard them say that we once had 20 times the amount of CO2 we have today in our atmosphere and life flourished on Earth....????

1. Yes, but it's 20 times pre-industrial carbon dioxide (around 6000 ppm, but it could have been as low as 2000 ppm) and life flourished in the ocean, not on the land. During the Cambrian, there was a supercontinent called Gondwanaland, which was centred around the South Pole. Now tell me why this is relevant.

Of course this is published data.  Where do you think the research came from?  Andrew Bolt?

Explain what you mean by hand-picked proxy data?


Quote:

The dispute is how much is human induced...????

There is no credible dispute.


Quote:

And then gets told to fix the problem we have to create a $2 to $10 trillion dollar carbon credit derivatives market on wall street would believe the crises is true in the first place.

To fix the problem, we need to stop burning fossil fuels and substitute renewable energy.

Does the IPCC advocate a Carbon Trading system? I doubt it. I'll check it out and let you know.

Right. If it's going to be anywhere, it would be in the summary for policy makers.
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf

Have a look yourself, but I can't find anything in that document that even mentions Emissions Trading or Carbon Tax.

The previous assessment reported on what emissions trading schemes existed but that was about it.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 3:45pm:

muso wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 3:25pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 1:23pm: muso wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 9:08am: There are many things that are being overlooked, however our Environmental regulators have a lot more power these days.  I gave an example in the Coal Generated power thread. I like James Lovelock's Gaia Theory. You DO??? Hmmm that's amusing, sorry muso, but the idea that the Earth is a living organism in it's own right, tends to demolish the whole AGW idea. OK. You don't understand. That was a strawman on your part. Quote: The Gaia hypothesis says that the temperature, oxidation state, acidity, and certain aspects of the rocks and waters are kept constant, and that this homeostasis is maintained by active feedback processes operated automatically and unconsciously by the biota. - James Lovelock, The Ages of Gaia Source - University of Michigan http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/Gaia/ Nowadays, it is actually taken seriously by Earth Sciences professionals. It isn't necessarily accepted holus bolus, but some aspects of it are interesting. I like it mainly because it's an interesting concept.    Actually I DO understand it...However, IF the Earth (and/or the entire biosphere) is an 'aware' entity, or even a quasi-aware entity,(or even a complex system at reacts to ALL parts/actions of the various components of the system), then wouldn't 'human' behavior be a natural, or integral part of the system??

yES, VERY GOOD GIZMO(golf clap for gizmo everyone!!): so the situation circles around our state of awareness then!!  :D :D

Have I, oops, just this minute gone over your head and you no longer wish to go down this path??

muso wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 7:11pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 5:31pm: They only support hand picked proxy data, (1) have you ever heard them say that we once had 20 times the amount of CO2 we have today in our atmosphere and life flourished on Earth....???? 1. Yes, but it's 20 times pre-industrial carbon dioxide (around 6000 ppm, but it could have been as low as 2000 ppm) and life flourished in the ocean, not on the land. During the Cambrian, there was a supercontinent called Gondwanaland, which was centred around the South Pole. Now tell me why this is relevant. Of course this is published data.  Where do you think the research came from?  Andrew Bolt? Explain what you mean by hand-picked proxy data?

Are you implying that Mr Bolt isn't up to speed with the latest scientific developments?

(excellent short post btw)

I'm sure Andrew Bolt has some admirable qualities that perhaps his mother might be aware of, but I doubt if he knows anything about science.

muso wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 7:35pm:

I'm sure Andrew Bolt has some admirable qualities that perhaps his mother might be aware of, but I doubt if he knows anything about science.

Much better we listen to that lovely Al Gore fella?

The bloke who cares for us all - travelling the world on his inheritance from tobacco....

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 7:39pm:

muso wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 7:35pm: I'm sure Andrew Bolt has some admirable qualities that perhaps his mother might be aware of, but I doubt if he knows anything about science. Much better we listen to that lovely Al Gore fella? The bloke who cares for us all - travelling the world on his inheritance from tobacco....

Al Gore is a politician, and not a particularly good one. He's irrelevant to the science. On the other hand, Andrew Bolt is very relevant to the BS as Gina Rinehart's poster boy. 

muso wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 7:11pm:

1. Yes, but it's 20 times pre-industrial carbon dioxide (around 6000 ppm, but it could have been as low as 2000 ppm) and life flourished in the ocean, not on the land. During the Cambrian, there was a supercontinent called Gondwanaland, which was centred around the South Pole. Now tell me why this is relevant.

The first mammals appeared about 225 million years ago, since then we have had CO2 levels that have come close to 3000ppm, and mammals thrived.


Quote:

Of course this is published data.  Where do you think the research came from?  Andrew Bolt?

Andrew Bolt, God bless his soul is only quoting from scientists cause he isn't one............!!!!!!


Quote:

Explain what you mean by hand-picked proxy data?

Well I cant be bothered finding it now, but I showed you a paper not long ago for CO2 and temperature and you rejected it because it stated that CO2 according to the proxy data follows temperature plus it was from the desert of USA, the proxies where from some type of tree.

If it had of supported your case you would have been all over it like a rash.....!!!


Quote:

There is no credible dispute.

WTF are your talking about this is where you guys come unstuck.

No one really knows how much of the increase is due to manmade CO2 emissions, since we are coming out of a mini ice age for the last 400 odds years or so and our sun was very active in the last 30 odd years.

Now our sun is going into an in active period for a few decades as i'm lead to believe, and viola CO2 keeps rising while temperatures have remained flat and might even head south.

So how much is natural and how much is manmade is any bodies guess.

Show me with 100% confidence how they can determine all the CO2 rise is solely due to manmade CO2 emissions....???


Quote:

To fix the problem, we need to stop burning fossil fuels and substitute renewable energy. Does the IPCC advocate a Carbon Trading system? I doubt it. I'll check it out and let you know. Right. If it's going to be anywhere, it would be in the summary for policy makers. http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5-SPM_Approved27Sep2013.pdf Have a look yourself, but I can't find anything in that document that even mentions Emissions Trading or Carbon Tax.

Are you for real, I think the IPCC invented the concept of carbon pricing.

Playing dumb now muso, try under, Mitigation of Climate Change

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg3/en/ch11s11-6-2.html

Ajax wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 8:18pm:

The first mammals appeared about 225 million years ago, since then we have had CO2 levels that have come close to 3000ppm, and mammals thrived.

Look, this is the graph that you keep producing.  What does the CO2 concentration correspond to for that period?  That's the black line isn't it?

What is the level of confidence in that number?


http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/image277-1.gif

The Supercontinent of Pangea was just starting to break up around the end of the Triassic. You might as well be talking about another planet.

muso wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 7:23am:

Ajax wrote on Oct 8th, 2013 at 8:18pm: The first mammals appeared about 225 million years ago, since then we have had CO2 levels that have come close to 3000ppm, and mammals thrived. Look, this is the graph that you keep producing.  What does the CO2 concentration correspond to for that period?  That's the black line isn't it? What is the level of confidence in that number? http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/image277-1.gif The Supercontinent of Pangea was just starting to break up around the end of the Triassic. You might as well be talking about another planet.

Have a look at the 150 million year mark CO2 levels are about 3000ppm, and life flourished.

You dropped the hot spot, you cannot defend the missing heat in the oceans or the ph levels so you keep looking for alternatives.

Have you ever questioned the IPCC's science or do you take it as gospel, what the IPCC says is correct and that there is no need to question it.....????

Ajax wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 7:55am:

FriYAY wrote on Oct 7th, 2013 at 12:50pm: Phemanderac wrote on Oct 3rd, 2013 at 10:03am: It seems to me that regardless of whether or not this particular tiger has teeth or not, rampant pollution continues in short. Exactly, localised environment degradation will affect a lot more people, a lot sooner than climate change. Over population and pollution are the elephants in the room, not climate change. First climate change has always been with us form day dot, otherwise the Earth would still be a molten rock of lava. The issue is anthropogenic global warming in other words are human emissions of CO2 causing all this warming..??? The climate is always changing whether humans have a influence or not. Second pricing carbon will not stop corporations dumping chemicals into our rivers oceans and land. You guys seem to think pricing carbon will stop all forms of pollution and roll pollution into one neat bundle. No you are wrong pricing carbon will only create a market on wall street to trade carbon credit derivatives. It will not stop any other form of pollution, and I doubt very much it will reduce human Co2 emissions. So when you say pollution are you talking about all forms of pollution or just human emissions of CO2....??????

Firstly – I never said I agreed with the climate change theory.

Second – I never mention pricing carbon.

Again, I made no comment on carbon pricing. My personal opinion is the tax should stay as a tax, be cut to alleviate the impost in business and the base of companies and pollutants be expanded and the money collected spent on renewables.

Oh a dam question….

I’m talking about localised environmental degradation of air, land and water.

FriYAY wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 10:31am:

Firstly – I never said I agreed with the climate change theory. Second – I never mention pricing carbon. Again, I made no comment on carbon pricing. My personal opinion is the tax should stay as a tax, be cut to alleviate the impost in business and the base of companies and pollutants be expanded and the money collected spent on renewables. Oh a dam question…. I’m talking about localised environmental degradation of air, land and water.

http://i42.tinypic.com/2n9yop5.jpg

Climate change means more bikini babes on the beach, also I haven't heard of a Siberian complain about global warming yet  ;D

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 3:46pm:

Climate change means more bikini babes on the beach, also I haven't heard of a Siberian complain about global warming yet  ;D

guess who....??????

http://i42.tinypic.com/jt8how.jpg http://i43.tinypic.com/2ef53lf.png

closer to home.......??????

http://i39.tinypic.com/x3ydlt.jpg

Last one.....guess who......????

http://i44.tinypic.com/k50vbo.jpg

Ajax wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 7:24pm:

Last one.....guess who......???? http://i44.tinypic.com/k50vbo.jpg

Who is this is?


:-/

A couple of links about stuff;

http://greenliving.lovetoknow.com/How_to_Stop_Water_Pollution

http://thebovine.wordpress.com/2012/03/28/growing-threats-to-our-food-system/

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 8:23pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 9th, 2013 at 7:24pm: Last one.....guess who......???? http://i44.tinypic.com/k50vbo.jpg Who is this is? :-/

French actress Sophie Marceau bit older these days but was a babe when she still had the chiseled look of youth...!!! 8-)

Princess of wales in braveheart
http://youtu.be/GmnP0MM_Ah4

I'm in South Australia for the next three weeks. I'll reply when I can but my Internet access is limited.

muso wrote on Oct 10^th, 2013 at 4:42pm:

I'm in South Australia for the next three weeks. I'll reply when I can but my Internet access is limited.

Hopefully global warming doesn't fry your brains ... whoops too late  ;D

muso wrote on Oct 10^th, 2013 at 4:42pm:

I'm in South Australia for the next three weeks. I'll reply when I can but my Internet access is limited.

Adelaide internet.  Nice.


http://www.gq.com/blogs/the-q/old_computer.jpg

Here ya go ajax, the very thread where I endeavoured to talk of things other than AGW and Carbon tax etc etc etc.

Take note of your opening gambit....

Opportunity lost!

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 6:06am:

Here ya go ajax, the very thread where I endeavoured to talk of things other than AGW and Carbon tax etc etc etc. Take note of your opening gambit.... Opportunity lost!

You first..............!

Ajax wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 7:58am:

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 6:06am: Here ya go ajax, the very thread where I endeavoured to talk of things other than AGW and Carbon tax etc etc etc. Take note of your opening gambit.... Opportunity lost! You first..............!

Indeed I was, the OP is mine   :D

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 17^th, 2013 at 9:35pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 7:58am: Phemanderac wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 6:06am: Here ya go ajax, the very thread where I endeavoured to talk of things other than AGW and Carbon tax etc etc etc. Take note of your opening gambit.... Opportunity lost! You first..............! Indeed I was, the OP is mine   :D

Isn't there an old saying about not being able to walk and chew gum at the same time?

# wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 2:32pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 9:35pm: Ajax wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 7:58am: Phemanderac wrote on Oct 17th, 2013 at 6:06am: Here ya go ajax, the very thread where I endeavoured to talk of things other than AGW and Carbon tax etc etc etc. Take note of your opening gambit.... Opportunity lost! You first..............! Indeed I was, the OP is mine   :D Isn't there an old saying about not being able to walk and chew gum at the same time?

Sorry, I didn't get back sooner, I was busy getting some gum off the driveway, I think somebody wanted to walk past my house...

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2013 at 8:16am:

I have long been of the view that the only thing the ongoing debate about Climate Change (regardless of the "science") has been to close eyes/minds to the very real, present and easily observed ongoing degradation of our environment through continued pollution, thus, enabling industrial polluters (in particular) to keep raking in money, whilst destroying that which our species relies on for life. Regardless of who eventually wins the AGW debate, the environment is still being trashed. http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/environment/gaia-just-turned-40-and-she-didnt-get-a-present/

I agree that corporations should be held accountable for dumping chemicals in our creeks, rivers, oceans and land.

I'm right there with you on this one.

Unfortunately carbon pricing will not stop corporations from dumping there chemicals in our creeks, rivers, ocenas and land.

For example at the moment there is a Spanish company that wants to dump their nuclear waste in central Australia, I heard the other day on the news that its on the verge of getting approval by the government.

http://www.acfonline.org.au/news-media/acf-opinion/plan-use-aboriginal-land-nuclear-waste-dump-flawed-and-misguided-guardian-au

http://www.smh.com.au/national/land-owners-out-of-mind-out-of-site-20100226-p95w.html

At the moment the land owners have a bit of reprieve in that they have taken it to the supreme or high court cant remember which one.

So you see carbon pricing only places a price on manmade CO2 emissions, and does nothing else for the environment.

It will not clean up any other form of pollution other than manmade CO2 emissions.

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 7:38am:

# wrote on Oct 19th, 2013 at 2:32pm: ... Isn't there an old saying about not being able to walk and chew gum at the same time? Sorry, I didn't get back sooner, I was busy getting some gum off the driveway, I think somebody wanted to walk past my house...

Ajax wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 9:36am:

... So you see carbon pricing ...

Ajax, have you been trying to walk past Phemanderac's house and chew gum at the same time? ::)

Something of interest for everyone....??????

But I don't blame you if you live in arrogance which is bliss.

http://youtu.be/XcGh1Dex4Yo