Global Warming

Disco08

Tiger Legend
Sep 23, 2003
21,757
0
Is it a myth or is it real? Do you think Australia and the US should ratify Kyoto?
 

Tiger74

In deedily doodily neighbourino!
Jul 2, 2004
11,601
0
Melbourne
Its a concern, but needs more science (which is happening which is good)

Kyoto is flawed because it excludes China and India. Without these two onboard, emissions controls are wasted.
 

Liverpool

How did that Julia and Kevin thing work out? :)
Jan 24, 2005
9,054
0
Melbourne
Disco08 said:
Is it a myth or is it real? Do you think Australia and the US should ratify Kyoto?
The earth is warming up...thats real.

Is it human's fault?....No...I don't think so. That part is myth.
The Yanks and Aussies shouldn't bother with this Kyoto rubbish for this reason....and for the reason Tiger74 stated with India and China.
Why don't the Greenies get over there and have a go at them?
 

Disco08

Tiger Legend
Sep 23, 2003
21,757
0
Do you think the fact that the human population has increased from 2 billion to over 9 billion in the last generation has anything to do with it?
 

Tiger74

In deedily doodily neighbourino!
Jul 2, 2004
11,601
0
Melbourne
Tiger Attack said:
I thought it was the cows.
It is a bigger issue than people give it credit for. Firstly in their methane production, secondly in the land clearing required to open up paddocks, and finally for the irrigation/super/feed suppliments needed to sustain growth.
 

Tiger74

In deedily doodily neighbourino!
Jul 2, 2004
11,601
0
Melbourne
Worst thing for global warming is the extremists who come out saying sea levels will rise by 5-20m. No science is backing this up, and it destroys any credibility of those trying o be objective about it.
 

Panthera tigris FC

Full Blown Chimp Crush
Oct 28, 2004
4,808
0
Torquay
There is a clear correlation between atmospheric CO2 and increasing temperature. Humans are certainly responsible for an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere (as well as the more potent greenhouse gas, methane, by our intensive farming of cows - which has the double edged effect that was pointed out in an earlier post).

I don't think there is much to debate on this issue.

The debatable area will be predicting the ultimate effects of this - humans have never been around with atmospheric CO2 at the current levels, so it is hard to judge historical climatic records to predict the future. Australia with its notoriously unpredictable climate that works on decade scales due to the el nino/ la nina effects may become even harder to predict as CO2 levels continue to climb.

I personally, think we will see effects and our current inability to accurately predict those effects is what scares me. The stance that, "well we don't know, so carry on" also seems rash. I don't see any easy solution though, the human impact on the environment and that environment's continued ability to sustain human populations, especially in the modern 'global' community - is a worry. Does anyone think that the modernisation of China is going to prove long-term sustainable?

Lots to discuss on this topic. Nice post Disco.

Your thoughts?
 

tigersnake

Tear 'em apart
Sep 10, 2003
18,293
82
Tiger74 said:
Its a concern, but needs more science (which is happening which is good)

Kyoto is flawed because it excludes China and India. Without these two onboard, emissions controls are wasted.
On the first point, yes it needs more science, everything needs more science. Surgical processes, automotive technology, computers, all need more science and there are teams of scientists working feverishly all over the world making advances in these areas. Key point: People have surgery, drive around in cars and use computers effectively every day all over the world.

Its exactly the same with global warming. The science has reached a point where are sure that its happening, and virtually sure that human activity is causing it. But anything that inconvenient to the status quo people always have the auto response that ‘we need more science’.

On the second point re Kyoto, if you apply the logic that total, unanimous commitment doesn’t exist (India and China, China have actually progressed further than anybody could ever have predicted on the issue) so nobody should commit to anything, where does that leave us? On all the big issues in the past, slavery for example, it takes a few enlightened nations to make the running. Imagine if all nations said we aren’t doing anything until every nation does, we’d still have slavery.

I’m always amazed and dismayed at the general belief that this is an extremist left-wing issue. It isn’t, or shouldn’t be. If governments respond and become committed to clean emissions and energy efficiency, we’ll still have all the same stuff we have now, it will just be more efficient. And more importantly, it will promote a huge exciting new phase in technological innovation.

When you look at the science, the implications, and the potential for innovation, the extremism isn’t a desire to respond, the extremism is the denial of the reality and protection of inefficient dinosaur industries.
 

Tiger74

In deedily doodily neighbourino!
Jul 2, 2004
11,601
0
Melbourne
tigersnake said:
Tiger74 said:
Its a concern, but needs more science (which is happening which is good)

Kyoto is flawed because it excludes China and India. Without these two onboard, emissions controls are wasted.
On the first point, yes it needs more science, everything needs more science. Surgical processes, automotive technology, computers, all need more science and there are teams of scientists working feverishly all over the world making advances in these areas. Key point: People have surgery, drive around in cars and use computers effectively every day all over the world.

Its exactly the same with global warming. The science has reached a point where are sure that its happening, and virtually sure that human activity is causing it. But anything that inconvenient to the status quo people always have the auto response that ‘we need more science’.

On the second point re Kyoto, if you apply the logic that total, unanimous commitment doesn’t exist (India and China, China have actually progressed further than anybody could ever have predicted on the issue) so nobody should commit to anything, where does that leave us? On all the big issues in the past, slavery for example, it takes a few enlightened nations to make the running. Imagine if all nations said we aren’t doing anything until every nation does, we’d still have slavery.

I’m always amazed and dismayed at the general belief that this is an extremist left-wing issue. It isn’t, or shouldn’t be. If governments respond and become committed to clean emissions and energy efficiency, we’ll still have all the same stuff we have now, it will just be more efficient. And more importantly, it will promote a huge exciting new phase in technological innovation.

When you look at the science, the implications, and the potential for innovation, the extremism isn’t a desire to respond, the extremism is the denial of the reality and protection of inefficient dinosaur industries.
I kept the comments brief because I was busy, but you have made some massive assumptions on my beliefs.

Did I say "do nothing" no!
Did I say "it aint happening" no!

Firstly we know something is happening, but th extent of the change and the degree between man-made and planet based still needs to be better understood. As such, those demanding we go back to the Stone Age need to be put on ice, because if this is a planetary issue, it wont change anything.

Secondly, we need to make changes, but we need to make effective changes. I want an agreement with China and India included because they are two of the biggest emmitters on the planet, and are growing faster than any other nations. Without them, its only a part step. Do I want this to drag on for years? No! But we need to do it right.

As for accussing me of labelling this an extreme leftist issue, show me where I said that. I actually belong to the left side of politics and agree change needs to be made, I just dont think change for change sake will fix anything
 

tigersnake

Tear 'em apart
Sep 10, 2003
18,293
82
Lets look at it another way. Lets say the deniers are right but we decide to act decisively anyway. What’s the problem? We end up with cleaner air, more efficient technology and our fossil fuels will last an extra couple of hundred years.

But look at the flipside, what if the science is correct and the lower end of the future scenarios is correct, but the deniers win the debate and we don’t act?

To me that’s the key point, even if the deniers are correct, and they might be, probably aren’t but they might be, we are still better off acting decisively. If we act, nothing to lose and a lot to gain. If we don’t act, a lot to lose and not that much to gain.
 

Tiger74

In deedily doodily neighbourino!
Jul 2, 2004
11,601
0
Melbourne
tigersnake said:
Lets look at it another way. Lets say the deniers are right but we decide to act decisively anyway. What’s the problem? We end up with cleaner air, more efficient technology and our fossil fuels will last an extra couple of hundred years.

But look at the flipside, what if the science is correct and the lower end of the future scenarios is correct, but the deniers win the debate and we don’t act?

To me that’s the key point, even if the deniers are correct, and they might be, probably aren’t but they might be, we are still better off acting decisively. If we act, nothing to lose and a lot to gain. If we don’t act, a lot to lose and not that much to gain.
Im not disagreeing with you, Im just saying if we take action make it effective action.

This is too big an issue for the usual political fluff responses, and ignoring China and India is too big a risk
 

tigersnake

Tear 'em apart
Sep 10, 2003
18,293
82
Tiger74 said:
As such, those demanding we go back to the Stone Age need to be put on ice, because if this is a planetary issue, it wont change anything.
To me this is the key point and one I always trying to make. Nobody is going back to the stone age. Sure there are are a few baggy-arsed hippies who'll advocate that, but its a ludicrous, extremist position. As I said, once committment exists at the top level and across the board, the pace of tech innovation will be blinding.
 

evo

Tiger Legend
Nov 25, 2003
22,132
2
I'm tempted to be the naysayer in this debate and say man definately doesn't contribute to the green house effect.

Why should Jay get all the fun.
 

mld

hi
Apr 1, 2006
9,643
0
Melbs
I'd say Australia's responsibility isn't so much about our emissions but what role we play on the world stage as a large exporter of coal and a potentially large exporter of uranium. If we can focus our efforts on development of cleaner coal technologies and positively influencing the uptake of those technologies by the customers for our coal it would be an initiative that does have the potential to make a global difference.