Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Are we being conned (again)
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 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Are we being conned (again)
"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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Are we being conned (again)
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Are we being conned (again)
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: : |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Are we being conned (again)
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: : |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Are we being conned (again)
"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... |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Are we being conned (again)
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 |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Are we being conned (again)
"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. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Are we being conned (again)
"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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Are we being conned (again)
"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). |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Are we being conned (again)
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. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Are we being conned (again)
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 |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Are we being conned (again)
"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. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Are we being conned (again)
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????? |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Are we being conned (again)
"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/ |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
So you don't think freemasons have been conned? | United Kingdom | |||
Are we being conned? Tax hikes? Yep it looks like it... | Australia | |||
Little Black Ants, Again & Again | North Carolina | |||
Bloody VERMIN Cats again, and again, and again, and again....:-(((( | United Kingdom | |||
Steveo Spanked Again - Was: rat does the tard dance...again | Lawns |