[David Hare-Scott[_2_]]

Jonno wrote:
Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere and we want to get rid of the
carbon pollution in it created by human activity. Let's go for a
walk along it. The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.
The next 210 metres are Oxygen.
That's 980 metres of the 1 kilometre. 20 metres to go.
The next 10 metres are water vapour. 10 metres left.
9 metres are argon. Just 1 more metre.
A few gases make up the first part of that last metre.
The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre - that's carbon
dioxide. A bit over one foot.
97% of that is produced by Mother Nature. It's natural.
Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12
millimetres left. Just over a centimetre - about half an inch.
That's the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity
puts into the atmosphere.
And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a
millimetre. Less than the thickness of a hair - out of a
kilometre. As a hair is to a kilometre - so is Australia's
contribution to what Mr. Rudd calls "Carbon Pollution".
Imagine Brisbane's new Gateway Bridge, ready to be opened by Mr.
Rudd. It's been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of
workers till its 1 kilometre length is surgically clean. Except
that Mr. Rudd says we have a huge problem, the bridge is polluted
- there's a human hair on the roadway. We'd laugh ourselves silly.
There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about. It's
hard to imagine that Australia's contribution to carbon dioxide in
the world's atmosphere is one of the more pressing ones. And it's
also hard to believe that a new tax on everything is the only way
to blow that pesky hair away. ETS is now being debated in Federal
Parliament - is it too late for reality to prevail?.

This takes the prize for the most clumsy climate change denial
******** I have ever seen. That particular lobby of vested
interests has been responsible for some rank bovine ordure over the
last few years but this is outstanding.

If you really want to keep our lack-lustre pollies on the ball
understand the issues and force them to make better choices. This
tract contributes nothing towards that aim.

Try:

- not passing on little parables and arguments by analogy, they are
fuzzy and meaningless except when they are just plain wrong;
- thinking for yourself instead of copying other people's rubbish;
- learning some science or at least enough to understand a
scientist so you won't be taken in by this sort of crap and
- giving up on conspiracy theories, they are just an easy way out
of hard problems and really don't explain anything or provide any
useful course of action.

It puts some things into perspective perhaps.
I am into science, and computers, and mechanical equipment, and
weather patterns. One thing is for sure,
these scientists are either getting it wrong on purpose, or are a
branch of the weather department, who cant get it right from day to
day.

You don't seem to understand the difference between climate and
weather and the fact that predicting each is a quite separate
problem so your interest in science has not been time well spent.

They grandstand a likely scenario, and say its a fifty fifty chance
of less rain....Its truly unbelievable
The fact that the solar sunspot cycle is out of its normal pattern
is what I think is causing the extra heating the planet is
experiencing.

This has been tested and debunked. You could have found this out
yourself if you had done some research.

Instead of blaming it on planetary pollution, (which there is too
much of) lets look at the real cause of global warming as the Sun.

No it isn't. This has also been debunked.

Extreme taxing by governments seems to be revenue raising.

This is an assumption and/or an emotional reaction. Show me the
evidence.

Kevin himself mentioned the thousand or so who control out economy
overseas. Dare I mention America? I believe they're running on empty
there. So where is all this climate change guff coming from?
America.

The scientific consensus that climate change is happening and is man
made is international. Try reading the reports from the UK, the
IPCC and our own climatologists if you don't like America.

Its no conspiracy theory, its factual that the countries most likely
to benefit from all of this are the ones who say the sky is falling.

Saying it's not a conspiracy theory changes nothing. Until you show
me the evidence you are just making wild claims. Lay out your case.

Personal attack aside, what's your theory and solution?

I said the quoted parable was ******** and gave some reasons why it
isn't useful and you shouldn't have passed it on. This is a
personal attack?

My view is to accept the overwhelming evidence of the experts who
have spent their lives working on the problem and for the world to
reverse the trend by reducing human generated emissions of
greenhouse gases. We need to get over burning fossil fuel and the
sooner the better. No I don't have any quick and easy method for
doing that, it is going to be a long hard slog with many hard
lessons to learn.

My aim is to start a little bit of thought on this subject.

You achieved the aim of being provocative but you have not
contributed much thought.

Whether this is a hare brained attempt, on my part, I don't know,
but thanks for your input....


You initially gave no reasons or evidence just a lame parable
containing a number of assumptions and errors. I am interested to
know its origin, where did you get it? How much time did you put
into verifying its content before you passed it on? I am betting on
none: you liked the message so you copied it for our benefit.

You have now added some disproved fallacies and some conspiracies.
This isn't any improvement.

David

PS please keep material in the order that it was typed or who said
what and when is going to get very confused, ie don't top post.

D

An item by Mclean show us this is not crap but a believable natural
event http://tinyurl.com/twisted-story

The Mclean article is hardly convincing. He is a climate-change contrarian
who is criticising a paper (Vecchi et al) that says an aspect of the changes
to ENSO events is man made. Mclean says it's natural. I am no
climatologist but I cannot see in Mclean's paper where he provides any
evidence about the cause of the event. I cannot see where he shows that it
has a natural cause.

However before we get into technicalities of climatology (which I am not
qualified to dissect in detail, I don't know about you) and taking up
cudgels on behalf of one academic or the other, is it that important if
Vecchi or Mclean are right on this point? Does the whole structure of
climate change stand or fall on this point? Has Mclean demolished the whole
thing in one stroke? I don't think so.

The evidence for climate change comes from many sources and from many
studies by many scientists. Not all the sources and scientists are in
complete agreement over the details but the broad consensus (aside from the
contrarians) is that climate change is happening and is man made.

The parable that you posted to start all this doesn't address the issue
either. A quick read reveals two major flaws (there are probably others)
where major assumptions are made and not supported.

1) The analogy about the thickness of atmosphere assumes that a tiny amount
of CO2 _cannot_ be significant. It does this without dealing at all with
how significance might be measured or whether or not it has been measured
and what the result is. I could produce a similar parable that illustrated
what a tiny proportion of the human body a strike of brown snake venom is.
Unless you know the lethal dose you are completely wasting your time showing
that it is a tiny fraction of the body, it might still kill you. Going back
to the climate parable the author nowhere mentions what level of CO2 is (
the lethal dose) is harmful.

2) The parable claims without attribution that 97% of airborne CO2 is not
man made. As far as I can see this is a claim from the wild blue yonder, I
certainly cannot find support for it. We would need to know where it comes
from and what the relevant professionals say about it. I suspect it is a
fabrication. If you can find any source for this please tell me.

When quoting such things it is handy to know the author, you can then find
out the source of the material and check it out to see if there is anything
in it. As it is, it is just unattributed propaganda.

David

[Jonno[_20_]]

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
Jonno wrote:
Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere and we want to get rid of the
carbon pollution in it created by human activity. Let's go for a
walk along it. The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.
The next 210 metres are Oxygen.
That's 980 metres of the 1 kilometre. 20 metres to go.
The next 10 metres are water vapour. 10 metres left.
9 metres are argon. Just 1 more metre.
A few gases make up the first part of that last metre.
The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre - that's carbon
dioxide. A bit over one foot.
97% of that is produced by Mother Nature. It's natural.
Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12
millimetres left. Just over a centimetre - about half an inch.
That's the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity
puts into the atmosphere.
And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a
millimetre. Less than the thickness of a hair - out of a
kilometre. As a hair is to a kilometre - so is Australia's
contribution to what Mr. Rudd calls "Carbon Pollution".
Imagine Brisbane's new Gateway Bridge, ready to be opened by Mr.
Rudd. It's been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of
workers till its 1 kilometre length is surgically clean. Except
that Mr. Rudd says we have a huge problem, the bridge is polluted
- there's a human hair on the roadway. We'd laugh ourselves silly.
There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about. It's
hard to imagine that Australia's contribution to carbon dioxide in
the world's atmosphere is one of the more pressing ones. And it's
also hard to believe that a new tax on everything is the only way
to blow that pesky hair away. ETS is now being debated in Federal
Parliament - is it too late for reality to prevail?.

This takes the prize for the most clumsy climate change denial
******** I have ever seen. That particular lobby of vested
interests has been responsible for some rank bovine ordure over the
last few years but this is outstanding.

If you really want to keep our lack-lustre pollies on the ball
understand the issues and force them to make better choices. This
tract contributes nothing towards that aim.

Try:

- not passing on little parables and arguments by analogy, they are
fuzzy and meaningless except when they are just plain wrong;
- thinking for yourself instead of copying other people's rubbish;
- learning some science or at least enough to understand a
scientist so you won't be taken in by this sort of crap and
- giving up on conspiracy theories, they are just an easy way out
of hard problems and really don't explain anything or provide any
useful course of action.

It puts some things into perspective perhaps.
I am into science, and computers, and mechanical equipment, and
weather patterns. One thing is for sure,
these scientists are either getting it wrong on purpose, or are a
branch of the weather department, who cant get it right from day to
day.

You don't seem to understand the difference between climate and
weather and the fact that predicting each is a quite separate
problem so your interest in science has not been time well spent.

They grandstand a likely scenario, and say its a fifty fifty chance
of less rain....Its truly unbelievable
The fact that the solar sunspot cycle is out of its normal pattern
is what I think is causing the extra heating the planet is
experiencing.

This has been tested and debunked. You could have found this out
yourself if you had done some research.

Instead of blaming it on planetary pollution, (which there is too
much of) lets look at the real cause of global warming as the Sun.

No it isn't. This has also been debunked.

Extreme taxing by governments seems to be revenue raising.

This is an assumption and/or an emotional reaction. Show me the
evidence.

Kevin himself mentioned the thousand or so who control out economy
overseas. Dare I mention America? I believe they're running on empty
there. So where is all this climate change guff coming from?
America.

The scientific consensus that climate change is happening and is man
made is international. Try reading the reports from the UK, the
IPCC and our own climatologists if you don't like America.

Its no conspiracy theory, its factual that the countries most likely
to benefit from all of this are the ones who say the sky is falling.

Saying it's not a conspiracy theory changes nothing. Until you show
me the evidence you are just making wild claims. Lay out your case.

Personal attack aside, what's your theory and solution?

I said the quoted parable was ******** and gave some reasons why it
isn't useful and you shouldn't have passed it on. This is a
personal attack?

My view is to accept the overwhelming evidence of the experts who
have spent their lives working on the problem and for the world to
reverse the trend by reducing human generated emissions of
greenhouse gases. We need to get over burning fossil fuel and the
sooner the better. No I don't have any quick and easy method for
doing that, it is going to be a long hard slog with many hard
lessons to learn.

My aim is to start a little bit of thought on this subject.

You achieved the aim of being provocative but you have not
contributed much thought.

Whether this is a hare brained attempt, on my part, I don't know,
but thanks for your input....


You initially gave no reasons or evidence just a lame parable
containing a number of assumptions and errors. I am interested to
know its origin, where did you get it? How much time did you put
into verifying its content before you passed it on? I am betting on
none: you liked the message so you copied it for our benefit.

You have now added some disproved fallacies and some conspiracies.
This isn't any improvement.

David

PS please keep material in the order that it was typed or who said
what and when is going to get very confused, ie don't top post.

D

An item by Mclean show us this is not crap but a believable natural
event http://tinyurl.com/twisted-story

The Mclean article is hardly convincing. He is a climate-change
contrarian who is criticising a paper (Vecchi et al) that says an aspect
of the changes to ENSO events is man made. Mclean says it's natural. I
am no climatologist but I cannot see in Mclean's paper where he provides
any evidence about the cause of the event. I cannot see where he shows
that it has a natural cause.

However before we get into technicalities of climatology (which I am not
qualified to dissect in detail, I don't know about you) and taking up
cudgels on behalf of one academic or the other, is it that important if
Vecchi or Mclean are right on this point? Does the whole structure of
climate change stand or fall on this point? Has Mclean demolished the
whole thing in one stroke? I don't think so.

The evidence for climate change comes from many sources and from many
studies by many scientists. Not all the sources and scientists are in
complete agreement over the details but the broad consensus (aside from
the contrarians) is that climate change is happening and is man made.

The parable that you posted to start all this doesn't address the issue
either. A quick read reveals two major flaws (there are probably others)
where major assumptions are made and not supported.

1) The analogy about the thickness of atmosphere assumes that a tiny
amount of CO2 _cannot_ be significant. It does this without dealing at
all with how significance might be measured or whether or not it has been
measured and what the result is. I could produce a similar parable that
illustrated what a tiny proportion of the human body a strike of brown
snake venom is. Unless you know the lethal dose you are completely wasting
your time showing that it is a tiny fraction of the body, it might still
kill you. Going back to the climate parable the author nowhere mentions
what level of CO2 is ( the lethal dose) is harmful.
To what? The climate? I would suppose that the release of CO2 has
happened in the past and has been said to be reponsible
for increased greenhouse effect on the planet, or is that not proven?


2) The parable claims without attribution that 97% of airborne CO2 is not
man made. As far as I can see this is a claim from the wild blue yonder,
I certainly cannot find support for it. We would need to know where it
comes from and what the relevant professionals say about it. I suspect it
is a fabrication. If you can find any source for this please tell me.

When quoting such things it is handy to know the author, you can then find
out the source of the material and check it out to see if there is
anything in it. As it is, it is just unattributed propaganda.

David


OK That's a better response, and one I can live with.
The real problem is they have no answer.
So everyone is running around saying the sky falling.

Some one mentioned the Emperors new clothes..(re Rudd) .Is this situation
created by swindlers?
The Great Green Swidle 30,000 scientists are suing Al Gore over the climate
change scam
While the majority of lawmakers seem to tend to agree with Mr. Gore, 30,000
scientists -
including 9,000 Ph.D. holders - have lined up with the founder of the
Weather Channel, John Coleman -
so that they may attempt to put together a lawsuit against Mr. Gore for
fraud.
Some have even threatened to sue unless Mr. Gore took their names off his
list of scientists who support
his claims about global warming.

Climate change is happening, whether its long term
we are not sure, and all items seem to be slanted towards increased
taxation, when there are no
real solutions as the questions don't appear to be fully answered.
The site here is a misnomer, but is as intelligent as most...
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/cause.html

The one solution I see is the population explosion, which appears to be
creating an " us vs. them "and quite likely a third world war.
Mind you to put it rather blandly Millions of bodies aren't going to do much
for the CO2 levels either....

Anyway please be contructive in this as I know its going to be diffcult one
way or another to sort it, if at all.
That doesnt mean attacks on opinions, but rather looking at it in another
way.
After all that how we solve most problems.

[Jonno[_20_]]

This is what would concern me.
Lawmakers acting as scientists with no understanding....
Taken from that Junk science page.


"Are we looking at a looming disaster from carbon dioxide emissions? There
is absolutely zero indication of that. Although human emission of carbon
dioxide has likely had some measurable effect on planetary temperature the
effect from continued emission is rapidly diminishing as radiative windows
in which carbon dioxide is active approach saturation. Before long
carbon dioxide emission will have exactly no discernable effect on global
temperature."



While I realise that this makes it even more important to prevent this
saturation as once it goes over this window, it could be difficult to rein
it back in.
The earth seems to have remarkable recuperative powers. It almost acts as a
living organism with its temperature responses.





"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
Jonno wrote:
Imagine 1 kilometre of atmosphere and we want to get rid of the
carbon pollution in it created by human activity. Let's go for a
walk along it. The first 770 metres are Nitrogen.
The next 210 metres are Oxygen.
That's 980 metres of the 1 kilometre. 20 metres to go.
The next 10 metres are water vapour. 10 metres left.
9 metres are argon. Just 1 more metre.
A few gases make up the first part of that last metre.
The last 38 centimetres of the kilometre - that's carbon
dioxide. A bit over one foot.
97% of that is produced by Mother Nature. It's natural.
Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12
millimetres left. Just over a centimetre - about half an inch.
That's the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity
puts into the atmosphere.
And of those 12 millimetres Australia puts in .18 of a
millimetre. Less than the thickness of a hair - out of a
kilometre. As a hair is to a kilometre - so is Australia's
contribution to what Mr. Rudd calls "Carbon Pollution".
Imagine Brisbane's new Gateway Bridge, ready to be opened by Mr.
Rudd. It's been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of
workers till its 1 kilometre length is surgically clean. Except
that Mr. Rudd says we have a huge problem, the bridge is polluted
- there's a human hair on the roadway. We'd laugh ourselves silly.
There are plenty of real pollution problems to worry about. It's
hard to imagine that Australia's contribution to carbon dioxide in
the world's atmosphere is one of the more pressing ones. And it's
also hard to believe that a new tax on everything is the only way
to blow that pesky hair away. ETS is now being debated in Federal
Parliament - is it too late for reality to prevail?.

This takes the prize for the most clumsy climate change denial
******** I have ever seen. That particular lobby of vested
interests has been responsible for some rank bovine ordure over the
last few years but this is outstanding.

If you really want to keep our lack-lustre pollies on the ball
understand the issues and force them to make better choices. This
tract contributes nothing towards that aim.

Try:

- not passing on little parables and arguments by analogy, they are
fuzzy and meaningless except when they are just plain wrong;
- thinking for yourself instead of copying other people's rubbish;
- learning some science or at least enough to understand a
scientist so you won't be taken in by this sort of crap and
- giving up on conspiracy theories, they are just an easy way out
of hard problems and really don't explain anything or provide any
useful course of action.

It puts some things into perspective perhaps.
I am into science, and computers, and mechanical equipment, and
weather patterns. One thing is for sure,
these scientists are either getting it wrong on purpose, or are a
branch of the weather department, who cant get it right from day to
day.

You don't seem to understand the difference between climate and
weather and the fact that predicting each is a quite separate
problem so your interest in science has not been time well spent.

They grandstand a likely scenario, and say its a fifty fifty chance
of less rain....Its truly unbelievable
The fact that the solar sunspot cycle is out of its normal pattern
is what I think is causing the extra heating the planet is
experiencing.

This has been tested and debunked. You could have found this out
yourself if you had done some research.

Instead of blaming it on planetary pollution, (which there is too
much of) lets look at the real cause of global warming as the Sun.

No it isn't. This has also been debunked.

Extreme taxing by governments seems to be revenue raising.

This is an assumption and/or an emotional reaction. Show me the
evidence.

Kevin himself mentioned the thousand or so who control out economy
overseas. Dare I mention America? I believe they're running on empty
there. So where is all this climate change guff coming from?
America.

The scientific consensus that climate change is happening and is man
made is international. Try reading the reports from the UK, the
IPCC and our own climatologists if you don't like America.

Its no conspiracy theory, its factual that the countries most likely
to benefit from all of this are the ones who say the sky is falling.

Saying it's not a conspiracy theory changes nothing. Until you show
me the evidence you are just making wild claims. Lay out your case.

Personal attack aside, what's your theory and solution?

I said the quoted parable was ******** and gave some reasons why it
isn't useful and you shouldn't have passed it on. This is a
personal attack?

My view is to accept the overwhelming evidence of the experts who
have spent their lives working on the problem and for the world to
reverse the trend by reducing human generated emissions of
greenhouse gases. We need to get over burning fossil fuel and the
sooner the better. No I don't have any quick and easy method for
doing that, it is going to be a long hard slog with many hard
lessons to learn.

My aim is to start a little bit of thought on this subject.

You achieved the aim of being provocative but you have not
contributed much thought.

Whether this is a hare brained attempt, on my part, I don't know,
but thanks for your input....


You initially gave no reasons or evidence just a lame parable
containing a number of assumptions and errors. I am interested to
know its origin, where did you get it? How much time did you put
into verifying its content before you passed it on? I am betting on
none: you liked the message so you copied it for our benefit.

You have now added some disproved fallacies and some conspiracies.
This isn't any improvement.

David

PS please keep material in the order that it was typed or who said
what and when is going to get very confused, ie don't top post.

D

An item by Mclean show us this is not crap but a believable natural
event http://tinyurl.com/twisted-story

The Mclean article is hardly convincing. He is a climate-change
contrarian who is criticising a paper (Vecchi et al) that says an aspect
of the changes to ENSO events is man made. Mclean says it's natural. I
am no climatologist but I cannot see in Mclean's paper where he provides
any evidence about the cause of the event. I cannot see where he shows
that it has a natural cause.

However before we get into technicalities of climatology (which I am not
qualified to dissect in detail, I don't know about you) and taking up
cudgels on behalf of one academic or the other, is it that important if
Vecchi or Mclean are right on this point? Does the whole structure of
climate change stand or fall on this point? Has Mclean demolished the
whole thing in one stroke? I don't think so.

The evidence for climate change comes from many sources and from many
studies by many scientists. Not all the sources and scientists are in
complete agreement over the details but the broad consensus (aside from
the contrarians) is that climate change is happening and is man made.

The parable that you posted to start all this doesn't address the issue
either. A quick read reveals two major flaws (there are probably others)
where major assumptions are made and not supported.

1) The analogy about the thickness of atmosphere assumes that a tiny
amount of CO2 _cannot_ be significant. It does this without dealing at
all with how significance might be measured or whether or not it has been
measured and what the result is. I could produce a similar parable that
illustrated what a tiny proportion of the human body a strike of brown
snake venom is. Unless you know the lethal dose you are completely wasting
your time showing that it is a tiny fraction of the body, it might still
kill you. Going back to the climate parable the author nowhere mentions
what level of CO2 is ( the lethal dose) is harmful.

2) The parable claims without attribution that 97% of airborne CO2 is not
man made. As far as I can see this is a claim from the wild blue yonder,
I certainly cannot find support for it. We would need to know where it
comes from and what the relevant professionals say about it. I suspect it
is a fabrication. If you can find any source for this please tell me.

When quoting such things it is handy to know the author, you can then find
out the source of the material and check it out to see if there is
anything in it. As it is, it is just unattributed propaganda.

David

[Jock[_2_]]

the planet has been warming up since the peak (trough) of the last ice age -
cashing in on a natural cycle? Who'd a thought?


"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
: Jonno wrote:
:

[Jonno[_20_]]

Please note. All these itmes can be found on the internet.
Google any sentence:

One thing that happened last time re exploitation.
The so called fluorocarbon used for refrigeration...
Replaced by a more safe refrigerant that would help the ozone layer.
The fact that DuPont's patent on this manufactured gas was about to run out
was a coincidence of course.
From Wikipedia
The Ozone depletion layer has been increasing, or shown no sign of recovery
of course.
The year 2008 saw the longest lasting hole on record, which remained until
the end of December.[89] The hole was detected by scientists in 1985[90] and
has tended to increase over the years of observation. The ozone hole is
attributed to the emission of chlorofluorocarbons or CFCs into the
atmosphere, which decompose the ozone into other gases


From Duponts site
DuPont led the industry in the phaseout of CFCs and transition to
environmentally acceptable alternatives. At the time, DuPont estimated that
more than $135 billion of existing equipment in the United States alone
depended on CFCs. In January 1991, DuPont was the first company to launch a
family of refrigerant alternatives that met performance, safety and
environmental criteria and could be used in existing as well as new
equipment, thus minimizing the transition cost to thousands of businesses
and consumers around the world. The company invested more than $500 million
to develop and commercialize CFC alternatives. CFCs accounted for less than
2 percent of the company's revenues.

Not from their site, based on suspicion...There is considerable evidence
that the ban on R -12 is based on bogus information and orchestrated by
Dupont because their patent on Freon was running out. It's unlikely the
decision will ever be reversed but it's just one more example of how big
business is wagging the dog.

PS the company is amongst the "most trustworthy" in the world. Er, if you
can fake sincerity you've got it made?
Funny that they are also in the seed business...
From the page: "DuPont today announced it is commercializing soybean
varieties developed using a technology that increases yields by as much as
12 percent per acre. DuPont seed business Pioneer Hi-Bred is introducing
five varieties with the technology for 2008 planting, pending wide-area
product advancement trial results. It wound be gene modification would it?




"Jock" wrote in message
...
the planet has been warming up since the peak (trough) of the last ice
age -
cashing in on a natural cycle? Who'd a thought?


"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
: Jonno wrote:
:

[Jonno[_20_]]

"Jock" wrote in message
...
the planet has been warming up since the peak (trough) of the last ice
age -
cashing in on a natural cycle? Who'd a thought?


"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
: Jonno wrote:
:


Then there is this, from our own Dennis Jensen, a scientist, ex CSIRO.
His web page tells it as he sees it....
I believe him to be a socially minded HONEST politician.
http://www.dennisjensen.com.au/

They may want to get rid of him, as he has standards...
Ooop. This is a gardening area, but in this instance NOT off topic.
It affect more than just gardeners...

[David Hare-Scott[_2_]]

Jonno wrote:

It seems that you have a propensity to accept conspiracy theories that I
lack - perhaps its genetic. I begin to think that we are not going to agree
on much.

Please note. All these itmes can be found on the internet.
Google any sentence:

One thing that happened last time re exploitation.
The so called fluorocarbon used for refrigeration...
Replaced by a more safe refrigerant that would help the ozone layer.
The fact that DuPont's patent on this manufactured gas was about to
run out was a coincidence of course.
From Wikipedia
The Ozone depletion layer has been increasing, or shown no sign of
recovery of course.

You didn't read the whole Wikipedia article, the recovery is not expected to
take place for some time.

" It is calculated that a CFC molecule takes an average of 15 years to go
from the ground level up to the upper atmosphere, and it can stay there for
about a century, destroying up to one hundred thousand ozone molecules
during that time."

but it is starting

"Since 1981 the United Nations Environment Programme has sponsored a series
of reports on scientific assessment of ozone depletion. The most recent is
from 2007 where satellite measurements have shown the hole in the ozone
layer is recovering and is now the smallest it has been for about a decade"


The year 2008 saw the longest lasting hole on record, which remained
until the end of December.[89] The hole was detected by scientists in
1985[90] and has tended to increase over the years of observation.
The ozone hole is attributed to the emission of chlorofluorocarbons
or CFCs into the atmosphere, which decompose the ozone into other
gases

From Duponts site
DuPont led the industry in the phaseout of CFCs and transition to
environmentally acceptable alternatives. At the time, DuPont
estimated that more than $135 billion of existing equipment in the
United States alone depended on CFCs. In January 1991, DuPont was the
first company to launch a family of refrigerant alternatives that met
performance, safety and environmental criteria and could be used in
existing as well as new equipment, thus minimizing the transition
cost to thousands of businesses and consumers around the world. The
company invested more than $500 million to develop and commercialize
CFC alternatives. CFCs accounted for less than 2 percent of the
company's revenues.
Not from their site, based on suspicion...There is considerable
evidence that the ban on R -12 is based on bogus information and

Please tell me where to find the considerable evidence of the bogus
information or who said that it existed.

orchestrated by Dupont because their patent on Freon was running out.
It's unlikely the decision will ever be reversed but it's just one
more example of how big business is wagging the dog.


It is odd to have DuPont accused of making it all up when they denied it was
happening.

Also from Wikipedia

"The Rowland-Molina hypothesis was strongly disputed by representatives of
the aerosol and halocarbon industries. The Chair of the Board of DuPont was
quoted as saying that ozone depletion theory is "a science fiction tale...a
load of rubbish...utter nonsense"."



If the link between CFCs and ozone depletion were all phantom why did so
many countries sign the Montreal agreement? Are you saying all their
scientists were under the thumb of big business?

Also from Wikipedia

"At Montreal, the participants agreed to freeze production of CFCs at 1986
levels and to reduce production by 50% by 1999. After a series of scientific
expeditions to the Antarctic produced convincing evidence that the ozone
hole was indeed caused by chlorine and bromine from manmade organohalogens,
the Montreal Protocol was strengthened at a 1990 meeting in London."

As with the previous case I would be interested to know where you found this
conspiracy theory.

David

[FarmI]

"Jonno" wrote in message
"Jock" wrote in message
...
the planet has been warming up since the peak (trough) of the last ice
age -
cashing in on a natural cycle? Who'd a thought?


"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
: Jonno wrote:
:


Then there is this, from our own Dennis Jensen, a scientist, ex CSIRO.
His web page tells it as he sees it....
I believe him to be a socially minded HONEST politician.
http://www.dennisjensen.com.au/

You lost me as soon as I read his site - no substance at all. AND he had Dr
Jennifer Marahasy mentioned - she makes me gag.

I'll bet he didn't attend Dr Mal Washer's Parliament House briefing which he
organised for fellow Liberals on Climate Change. Mal Washer IS one
politician I would call honest and having met so many of them, I don't call
many of them honest.

[Jonno[_20_]]

"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote in message
...
"Jonno" wrote in message
"Jock" wrote in message
...
the planet has been warming up since the peak (trough) of the last ice
age -
cashing in on a natural cycle? Who'd a thought?


"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
: Jonno wrote:
:


Then there is this, from our own Dennis Jensen, a scientist, ex CSIRO.
His web page tells it as he sees it....
I believe him to be a socially minded HONEST politician.
http://www.dennisjensen.com.au/

You lost me as soon as I read his site - no substance at all. AND he had
Dr Jennifer Marahasy mentioned - she makes me gag.

I'll bet he didn't attend Dr Mal Washer's Parliament House briefing which
he organised for fellow Liberals on Climate Change. Mal Washer IS one
politician I would call honest and having met so many of them, I don't
call many of them honest.

Sorry about the people he has contact with.
We all have different opinions
Its not political though, its climate change.
Dennis Jensen appeared on Four corners last night, as a coincidence BTW on
the subject.
As an easy way to see if it is solar heating rather than people influenced
there has been the Ulysses
satellite observations of other planets also getting hotter....Hope your
sound program works...
http://blogs.abc.net.au/nsw/2009/11/...rina_breakfast

[FarmI]

"Jonno" wrote in message
"FarmI" ask@itshall be given wrote in message
"Jonno" wrote in message
"Jock" wrote in message
...
the planet has been warming up since the peak (trough) of the last ice
age -
cashing in on a natural cycle? Who'd a thought?


"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
...
: Jonno wrote:
:


Then there is this, from our own Dennis Jensen, a scientist, ex CSIRO.
His web page tells it as he sees it....
I believe him to be a socially minded HONEST politician.
http://www.dennisjensen.com.au/

You lost me as soon as I read his site - no substance at all. AND he had
Dr Jennifer Marahasy mentioned - she makes me gag.

I'll bet he didn't attend Dr Mal Washer's Parliament House briefing which
he organised for fellow Liberals on Climate Change. Mal Washer IS one
politician I would call honest and having met so many of them, I don't
call many of them honest.

Sorry about the people he has contact with.

It's more than just the 'people he has contact with'. I've read Marahasy
for years and she is a climate change sceptic. And as for Jensen being ex
CSIRO, he was only there for 4 years so could have done no long term
research on climate in such a short time. His site makes no contribution to
discussion on climate change, just says he's agin anything put forward. I
don't find that useful at all.

It's a complex subject and I dont' have any Science background to help me
out in understanding it. At best, I rely on real scientists and to me that
precludes many 'scientists' in the US where their research is so often
funded by big business. CSIRO says that humans are involved in climate
change and that it will impact negativley on Oz.
http://www.csiro.au/resources/pfbg.html

I know I've done a lot of travel through various bits of rural NSW and Vic
over recent years and whatever is happening and why is not a pretty picture.
I think our rural areas are pretty well stuffed.

We all have different opinions
Its not political though, its climate change.

Of course it's bloody political if you post claiming to using an HONEST
politician and that post sends people to Jensen (who says nothing) and
Marahasy (who is a sceptic)! All they were doing is presenting a petition.

Dennis Jensen appeared on Four corners last night, as a coincidence BTW
on the subject.

Yes. And that was an interesting show but not for anything it said about
climate change. The real story there was that the Libs are still in
disarray, are still arrogant and need to learn some humility and still seem
to think that they can make promises and change them at will. Their climate
change commitment was only made because they thought they'd lose the
election they clealry thought it could fool enough people into believing the
promise to survive and then they'd rescind the promise post election.
Cynical shits (as are nearly all politicans).

As an easy way to see if it is solar heating rather than people influenced
there has been the Ulysses
satellite observations of other planets also getting hotter....Hope your
sound program works...
http://blogs.abc.net.au/nsw/2009/11/...rina_breakfast

I'll try to listen to it later (if I haven't exceeded download limit in
which case I won't).

[Jonno[_20_]]

It's more than just the 'people he has contact with'. I've read Marahasy
for years and she is a climate change sceptic. And as for Jensen being ex
CSIRO, he was only there for 4 years so could have done no long term
research on climate in such a short time. His site makes no contribution
to discussion on climate change, just says he's agin anything put forward.
I don't find that useful at all.

I would give the CSIRO the beneift of the doubt.


It's a complex subject and I dont' have any Science background to help me
out in understanding it. At best, I rely on real scientists and to me
that precludes many 'scientists' in the US where their research is so
often funded by big business. CSIRO says that humans are involved in
climate change and that it will impact negativley on Oz.
http://www.csiro.au/resources/pfbg.html

I know I've done a lot of travel through various bits of rural NSW and Vic
over recent years and whatever is happening and why is not a pretty
picture. I think our rural areas are pretty well stuffed.
Too many people, too much farmer mis man agent ment created by corporations
squeezing these people on top of a change of climate.
Pollies, in alliance with corporations and their shareholders, in the past
have sold us out, and it happens all the time.

We all have different opinions
Its not political though, its climate change.
My opinion certainly isnt political, I want the damn truth.

Of course it's bloody political if you post claiming to using an HONEST
politician and that post sends people to Jensen (who says nothing) and
Marahasy (who is a sceptic)! All they were doing is presenting a
petition.

Dennis Jensen appeared on Four corners last night, as a coincidence BTW
on the subject.

Yes. And that was an interesting show but not for anything it said about
climate change. The real story there was that the Libs are still in
disarray, are still arrogant and need to learn some humility and still
seem to think that they can make promises and change them at will. Their
climate change commitment was only made because they thought they'd lose
the election they clealry thought it could fool enough people into
believing the promise to survive and then they'd rescind the promise post
election. Cynical shits (as are nearly all politicans).

As an easy way to see if it is solar heating rather than people
influenced there has been the Ulysses
satellite observations of other planets also getting hotter....Hope your
sound program works...
http://blogs.abc.net.au/nsw/2009/11/...rina_breakfast

I'll try to listen to it later (if I haven't exceeded download limit in
which case I won't).
Ok thanks that's a reasonable reply.
The other situation is of course, while the planet may be hotting up, what
is the actual reason?
Al Gore, who seems to be on a nice earner, is also the person involved with
the previous fluorocarbon refrigerants they banned. While the McDonalds foam
burger wrappers, are not
a major concern, they were a big item a while ago, and foam is being used
everywhere these days. What are they using to manufacture that stuff these
days?
Some interesting websites for and against, man made or nature. I found
these in "Silicon Chip" the
electronics magazine.
http://www.infinitebanking.org/BankNotes/2009-08.pdf


http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/2...ven-and-earth/

An interesting aside is if the co2 lobby is to be believed, there is
something else we need to understand.
After a certain percentage of CO2 is reached, the greenhouse effect no
longer increases. This CO2 window
in other words creates no more escalation of greenhouse heating.
If we are close to this saturation point, we should have no fears of
increased CO2 production, as it wont affect the climate anymore than at
present.


From this website
http://geoplasma.spaces.live.com/blo...0B2B!592.entry

"The greenhouse effect from CO2 is generally stated as 3°C, so an additional
100ppmv above the 280ppmv level is only capable of generating a maximum 5%
increase or 0.15°C. The forcing parameter is based on a full 0.6°C which is
four times the 0.15°C absolute physical limit of warming from CO2.

Furthermore if this 0.15°C increase has used up the full 5% of the remaining
possible energy as the concentration reached 380ppmv, there is zero warming
possible from further increases in CO2.

This is why the CO2 notch is virtually identical in the two spectra; the CO2
band was virtually saturated at the 325ppmv concentration level, so even
nine times more CO2 has almost no appreciable effect.

Unless all these points can adequately be addressed, the climate models
based on this forcing parameter must be declared invalid, and all work based
on these models as a reference for global warming mitigation must also be
declared invalid. "

Enough said? There is a political problem. Its getting these people to stop
doing to stop screwing the world even more.

[David Hare-Scott[_2_]]

FarmI wrote:


I know I've done a lot of travel through various bits of rural NSW
and Vic over recent years and whatever is happening and why is not a
pretty picture. I think our rural areas are pretty well stuffed.


My wife was talking to an old timer (80ish) in the district who was pointing
out that in her memory of the 1930s and in her parents' memory of the 1900s
there were worse droughts and dust storms than in recent years. This
informant went on to say that there was no point in complaining, that you
had to put up with whatever you got, and that the droughts of old showed
there was no climate change. This is by no means an isolated case of this
type.

The old timer is right that there have been bad droughts and duststorms in
the past and that these had nothing to do with climate change. The problem
arrises when you extend this to saying that therefore the droughts and
duststorms now cannot be due to climate change, or conversely since we had
droughts before that were not caused by climate change and we have droughts
now, therefore climate change doesn't exist.

I don't think any scientist is saying that the droughts we have had recently
are simply and solely due to climate change. What they are saying is that
existing climate factors that can bring drought like ENSO are likely to get
more powerful or more frequent. So the first part of the reason for denial
is the confusion between shorter term events like weather, middle term
events like ENSO and the long term.

There is a second part which I believe it is another common origin of
climate change denial in country districts. The way that it works is that
when you are on the land you are taught to be a survivor, to find methods of
coping, to fix the problem if you can and to endure it if you cannot do
anything about it. This is admirable and makes much sense in the
environment. The problem comes when attitudes that go with the philosophy
are extended beyond their useful scope. In learning to be Stoic and to
endure whatever nature throws at you, you are taught not to whinge. To
whinge is a sign of weakness, a sign of a pointless attitude that you wish
the world to be as you desire it and that you are too stupid to accept it as
it really is.

If you blame drought on an external agency like climate change you are
whingeing, blaming somebody or something else instead of taking
responsibility and getting on with the job. If you are a self sufficient
farmer whose pride keeps you going in tough times then emotionally you
cannot blame climate change because that is admitting you cannot cope.
Therefore it doesn't exist. The sad thing is that if they did accept that
something bigger than them was going on and put their coping skills to use
in new ways they would be better off. We may not have time to wait until
younger sons and granddaughters take over with newer attitudes.

These are some observations of part of rural NSW that you might find
interesting. I am not trying to suggest that any of this necessarily
represents you or your situation.

David

[FarmI]

"David Hare-Scott" wrote in message
FarmI wrote:


I know I've done a lot of travel through various bits of rural NSW
and Vic over recent years and whatever is happening and why is not a
pretty picture. I think our rural areas are pretty well stuffed.


My wife was talking to an old timer (80ish) in the district who was
pointing out that in her memory of the 1930s and in her parents' memory of
the 1900s there were worse droughts and dust storms than in recent years.
This informant went on to say that there was no point in complaining, that
you had to put up with whatever you got, and that the droughts of old
showed there was no climate change. This is by no means an isolated case
of this type.

The old timer is right that there have been bad droughts and duststorms in
the past and that these had nothing to do with climate change. The
problem arrises when you extend this to saying that therefore the droughts
and duststorms now cannot be due to climate change, or conversely since we
had droughts before that were not caused by climate change and we have
droughts now, therefore climate change doesn't exist.

Yep.

I don't think any scientist is saying that the droughts we have had
recently are simply and solely due to climate change. What they are
saying is that existing climate factors that can bring drought like ENSO
are likely to get more powerful or more frequent. So the first part of
the reason for denial is the confusion between shorter term events like
weather, middle term events like ENSO and the long term.

There is a second part which I believe it is another common origin of
climate change denial in country districts. The way that it works is that
when you are on the land you are taught to be a survivor, to find methods
of coping, to fix the problem if you can and to endure it if you cannot do
anything about it. This is admirable and makes much sense in the
environment. The problem comes when attitudes that go with the philosophy
are extended beyond their useful scope. In learning to be Stoic and to
endure whatever nature throws at you, you are taught not to whinge. To
whinge is a sign of weakness, a sign of a pointless attitude that you wish
the world to be as you desire it and that you are too stupid to accept it
as it really is.

If you blame drought on an external agency like climate change you are
whingeing, blaming somebody or something else instead of taking
responsibility and getting on with the job. If you are a self sufficient
farmer whose pride keeps you going in tough times then emotionally you
cannot blame climate change because that is admitting you cannot cope.
Therefore it doesn't exist. The sad thing is that if they did accept that
something bigger than them was going on and put their coping skills to use
in new ways they would be better off. We may not have time to wait
until younger sons and granddaughters take over with newer attitudes.

These are some observations of part of rural NSW that you might find
interesting. I am not trying to suggest that any of this necessarily
represents you or your situation.

Yep. Fits in with the Beyond Blue campaigns etc too. But I also think that
is both a bit overly pessimistic and a bit too global in how some of our
farmers are learning to cope/adapt/innovate. I certainly see where you're
coming from though.

I was a bit glib when I threw in my 'stuffed' comment. I should have made
more effort to explain. As a gardener, I tend to look at growing things and
plants that have died. It's when you see trees that must be hundreds of
years old dieing or dead or in stress that make you wonder what is going on.
These trees have withstood droughts before, have been stressed before and
yet have managed to survive - till now. Isolated trees will die but when
you see huge numbers dead or so far gone that you know thye won't recover,
it rings alarm bells.

I do know that our Fed politicians have been told that the future will bring
much drier conditions to both the south east of Oz and the south west.
That's our food growing areas so not a pretty picture.

[SG1[_3_]]

Snip
I don't think any scientist is saying that the droughts we have had
recently are simply and solely due to climate change. What they are
saying is that existing climate factors that can bring drought like ENSO
are likely to get more powerful or more frequent. So the first part of
the reason for denial is the confusion between shorter term events like
weather, middle term events like ENSO and the long term.
snip

WTH is ENSO?????

[Jonno[_20_]]

"SG1" wrote in message
...
Snip
I don't think any scientist is saying that the droughts we have had
recently are simply and solely due to climate change. What they are
saying is that existing climate factors that can bring drought like ENSO
are likely to get more powerful or more frequent. So the first part of
the reason for denial is the confusion between shorter term events like
weather, middle term events like ENSO and the long term.
snip

WTH is ENSO?????
Answer: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/