Australian Politics Forum - Other issues besides the "climate" debate

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10982
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Other issues besides the "climate" debate
Reply #30 - Oct 8^th, 2013 at 7:55am

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

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.

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....??????

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: Other issues besides the "climate" debate
Reply #31 - Oct 8^th, 2013 at 1:15pm

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

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

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.

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

Back to top

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Other issues besides the "climate" debate
Reply #32 - Oct 8^th, 2013 at 1:23pm

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.

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

Chimp_Logic

Gold Member

Offline

πολιτικός

Posts: 4826
Mawson Base
Gender: male

Re: Other issues besides the "climate" debate
Reply #33 - Oct 8^th, 2013 at 1:31pm

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

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.

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

Back to top

Mini Ice Age (2014-2029)
Dr Sircus cures cancer with Baking Soda and Magnesium - Jethro the MENTAL GIANT & his flute madness

IP Logged

Phemanderac

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3507
Gender: male

Re: Other issues besides the "climate" debate
Reply #34 - Oct 8^th, 2013 at 3:10pm

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

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

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.

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...

Back to top

On the 26th of January you are all invited to celebrate little white penal day...

"They're not rules as such, more like guidelines" Pirates of the Caribbean..

IP Logged

Phemanderac

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3507
Gender: male

Re: Other issues besides the "climate" debate
Reply #35 - Oct 8^th, 2013 at 3:11pm

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

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.

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

Back to top

On the 26th of January you are all invited to celebrate little white penal day...

"They're not rules as such, more like guidelines" Pirates of the Caribbean..

IP Logged

Phemanderac

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3507
Gender: male

Re: Other issues besides the "climate" debate
Reply #36 - Oct 8^th, 2013 at 3:19pm

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....

Back to top

On the 26th of January you are all invited to celebrate little white penal day...

"They're not rules as such, more like guidelines" Pirates of the Caribbean..

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Other issues besides the "climate" debate
Reply #37 - Oct 8^th, 2013 at 3:25pm

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

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.

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.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Other issues besides the "climate" debate
Reply #38 - Oct 8^th, 2013 at 3:45pm

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

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

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.

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??

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

Phemanderac

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3507
Gender: male

Re: Other issues besides the "climate" debate
Reply #39 - Oct 8^th, 2013 at 4:13pm

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

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

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

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.

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?

Back to top

On the 26th of January you are all invited to celebrate little white penal day...

"They're not rules as such, more like guidelines" Pirates of the Caribbean..

IP Logged

gizmo_2655

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male

Re: Other issues besides the "climate" debate
Reply #40 - Oct 8^th, 2013 at 4:57pm

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

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

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

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

[quote author=muso link=1380752185/1#1 date=1380755324]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?[/quote]

No, more like an intelligent entity..

Back to top

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat

IP Logged

Ajax Gold Member Offline CO2 has never controlled temperature on Earth Posts: 10982 Australia Gender:	Re: Other issues besides the "climate" debate Reply #41 - Oct 8^th, 2013 at 5:10pm 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....!!!!!!.
Back to top	1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax 2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Other issues besides the "climate" debate
Reply #42 - Oct 8^th, 2013 at 5:20pm

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.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10982
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Other issues besides the "climate" debate
Reply #43 - Oct 8^th, 2013 at 5:31pm

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...........!!!!!

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Other issues besides the "climate" debate
Reply #44 - Oct 8^th, 2013 at 7:11pm

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.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Oct 8^th, 2013 at 7:32pm by muso »

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged