Kevin, I hope you are well. No “End is nigh” posts for a while? No answers to the questions above? You OK mate?
David Karoly has one of the better reviews of Plimer’s “work”. One professor defies the world’s peer review process and dozens of scientific bodies that are all in agreement, quotes everything out of context, does not source his graphs, is INTERNALLY inconsistent, and sells a conspiracy theory to make a best-seller for the gullible and recalcitrant.
David Karoly punchline: (my paraphrase from memory).
“If a library wastes money on this book they should at least file it under Science Fiction next to Michael Krighton’s “State of Fear”. The only difference between “Heaven and Earth” and “State of Fear” is that “State of Fear” contains less scientific errors in it.”
I have been missing this thread and I think it deserves to be reignited with a twist, to put it mildly and perhaps a bit crazily. The trouble with getting massive shifts in peoples comfort zones, like accepting global warming, and then changing things to halt or modify it, is that people just don’t like changes “if it ain’t broke”.
I believe that to make this change we need a political party with the will and mechanism to do it, and I think Christianity (and other religions) are an essential part of this change.
In today’s media it is reported that various politicians are reported to use Christian morals and sayings to give their messages a desirable flavour.. Let’s go back to the Roman politician Constantine who is reported to call on the Christian God in the heat of batle to enable him to win the battle. One hopes he thanked God for his success and prayed that fields of blood would be no more. If so he wasn’t very successsful.
I think Islam was a bit more successful in maintaining peace, and as the last Abramaic religion to evolve successfully in terms of support,it has a lot going for it. It seems to me that time and tide has shown that religion is needed in government, but separate from it. Perhaps Saudi Arabia has the mix about right. They appear to be relatively peaceful and have not let their wealth destroy them.
I think that we have to admit that most ideaologies in government of the past are obsolete. IT is a completely new ball game with the world crammed full of people, species dying, resources unsustainable etc. Labour’s roots are gone, Communism is dead, Capiltalism is going around in circles (ever decreasing) and Palaces are only for Casinos and Churches.
The Nazi’s predicted the need for a new world order and wanted to lead the way with hegemony as opposed to colonialism. Unfortunately HItler and Goering , as soldiers knew only one way of getting results—-cold steel. Well with over 30 million dead , they did get rid of colonialism.
So her’s the plan. This Mighty Church blog will give rise to the Mighty Church BEF Party. BEF stands for BALANCE, ECOLOGY and FREEDOM. To keep Michael happy child protection would have to be in there somewhere . It should be in the religion part. Science should be in everything.
All we need now is money, but I have $20 in Tues Lotto tonight, so there should be $90 million ready for the BEF party tomorrow. Every cent, just like the Bible says.
“Ohh, ohh, oh! Can I be voted President for Life!?”
Ha ha!
OK, but I do think the current 2 party dominated system, kowtowing to the usual suspects, does need major radical political reform to become a stronger democracy that can act faster in a crisis.
This is why I am a part of http://beyondfederation.com/forum/
As I’ve stated in the “Abolish the States” thread, a National / Local political model is about much more than just abolishing the middle tier of government and having a Stronger National government actually in charge of health and education etc AND stronger Local government, but it is also about voting and party systems, and making them more reflective of Australian community desires…. while able to provide strong leadership in a crisis. And the stronger LOCAL level of government could only be enhanced through the actual physical structures we could gradually start to build into our more local world.
Watch the 15 minute presentation to the UNSW… this would solve peak oil and global warming over the next 20 years, if we got cracking now. http://villageforum.com/
Or it could become a grassroots campaign targeting marginal seats next election, promising candidates YOUR vote if they promise to sign on and ADOPT the Simultaneous Policy! http://www.simpol.org/
Dave, Thanks for the links. The Simpol link is particularly good. They are apparently very organised.
You are 1st choice for President of BEF Party, and I hope you will support me for Treasurer. Don’t know anything about finance , but that could be a recomendation.
Of course you know that movers and shakers of the status quo have a hard time. Noah only had to build a boat. Jesus’s followers had a terrible time—burnt , stoned and strangled. But they succeded in the end. Let’s hope we don’t get burnt at the steak.
On a brighter note , I won $12.40 for my $10.00 plunge on Lotto.
About half way through this movie, which is all about global warming models and is very interesting in its own right, they shine a candle through a clear glass tube at a camera. The camera picks up the heat from the candle and displays it on a computer monitor… hottest parts white, cooler parts yellow then orange then red. So basically the camera picks up the heat of the candle and shows it on the display. No trickery here, just a heat sensitive camera.
They fill the tube with Co2 and the candle disappears off the monitor! Because Co2 is invisible we can still see the candle through the tube, but the heat is reflected / refracted back out everywhere else and doesn’t get through the tube.
So this demonstrates what Co2 does, which is bounce heat waves back.
As I understand the theory (not being technical myself but reading around a lot), the suns light energy shines down through our atmosphere at a frequency which passes Co2 easily. When it hits the earth, the higher frequency of energy is “blocked” by the earth and changes into heat energy, a lower wavelength. This would normally leak off into space so that the earth is not totally cooked. However, Co2 gets in the way and “bounces” a little of that energy back. The more Co2, the more energy is bounced back.
It’s done by guys in lab coats and all, but people still seem to think they know better. ;-)
Well known climate sceptic Dr Patrick J Michaels, Phd, stood up at the infamous Heartland Institute (which debunks that other great myth, and disagrees that smoking causes lung cancer! ;-) , and stated that the Heartland institute and climate sceptic friends just had to stop pushing the myth that the world has been cooling since 1998 because it is so easily debunked!
Make an argument that you can get killed on and you will kill us all…
If you loose credibility on this issue you lose this issue!
This 8 minute clip is an example of why I subscribe to “Climate Crock of the week” and refer sceptics to it, as it is beautifully produced, and quotes all the latest authoritative data. Too easy!
I hope he didn’t ‘loose’ credibility, but how are the sceptics doing these days? Run out of steam yet, or still carrying the torch? Or too distracted fighting the evil socialism!!111!!!! of universal health care in the US?
When I watched my first climate sceptic movie “The Great Global Warming Swindle” I had not really read a lot about global warming, and was basically more concerned with us running out of oil than what oil was doing to the climate. I was genuinely puzzled by the movie, and started to doubt the climatologists. But after reading about it for a few years now it seems the DOGMA that refuses to change and evolve is all on the side of the sceptics. The real science that responds to the actual data is on the side of global warming. I’m now quite disgusted by the half-truths and downright LIES in the “Swindle” which is of course itself the swindle.
So back to Dr Michaels… I wonder if he’s nervous because El Nino is returning? This is what I wrote to some sceptics on another forum recently…
3. El Nino is returning in 2009. When one of the next few years breaks all previous temperature records, will you then admit you were wrong? Or will you wait until after the El Nino for the inevitable La Nina cooling, narrow your data in to the 3 or 4 years of cooling, and shout “WILL YOU JUST LOOK at all the COOLING since 2011!” (The sceptic equivalent of “Look, big shiny thing over there!”). One wonders whether the denialists will be so stupid as to be taken in by this tactic again.
I could make ANY story I want from the temperature record by choosing short enough trends. When are you going to look at the *15 and 20 year trends* instead of cherrypicking those *few* years that show the conclusions you want?
If temperature records aren’t broken over… what time period? Remember, if there’s a significant enough volcano over the next year or so it could cancel out the El Nino but still not invalidate Co2 concerns. By the time the particulates disappeared letting in the sunlight again, we’d have added a whole lot more Co2.
But if global warming turned out to be false (which I seriously doubt), I’d breathe a huge sigh of relief and just let peak oil, gas, and coal take over the move to more sustainable renewable energy. I’ll have to learn to laugh, because if peak oil is as bad as I think it will be, we’ll probably be bankrupt and living with my parents, or in a tent, or something….
(I think there ARE technical solutions to peak oil, but just can’t see them being implemented in time).
Anyone see the Climate Justice remake of Midnight Oil’s “Beds are burning”? I feared that it would sound a bit like the Band Aid song “Feed the world” that tried to include too many rock-stars, had no prevailing ‘vibe’, and just ended up a hammed up mish-mash. But I don’t mind this one at all. Joy says the graphics are excellent.
Also… while I’m contributing to the “Crazy climate” thread…
Imagine that… I’ve been badly paraphrased in the media and sound a little off-beat. ;-)
David and Joy Lankshear
Meet the Lankshear family - David, Joy, eight-year-old Harry and four-year-old Amelia. A few months ago, they decided to do their bit for the environment and have a solar hot-water system installed.
“Our main concern was global warming and the energy crisis,” David says. “We’re running out of coal and so we thought, ‘Solar is clean and renewable so that is the way to go.’ “
Solar hot-water systems can be expensive. So, to encourage more people to switch to solar, EnergyAustralia and the NSW Government help fund the purchase.
“The EnergyAustralia rebate helped us buy our solar hot-water system a few years earlier than we could have,” David says.
Plus, they’re paying much less on their bills. “It’ll pay for itself within four years and we’ll have years of free water after that,” David says.
I didn’t tell them coal was ‘running out’ but that it would one day peak in NSW, and could actually ‘run out’ but that this would occur in about 33 years (in NSW)**. I guess I didn’t speak in media sound-bytes. Any thought that runs more than 10 seconds has to be cut.
However, my main point was to emphasise not just global warming, which everyone does already, but that the stuff we rely on is about to become far more expensive after it peaks and the world fossil fuel markets have to supply a bidding war. That would actually be quite good for our economy hey? ;-) Selling coal overseas at ever higher prices. Mmmmmm mmmm, I can smell the money.
Too bad the science behind global warming is stacking up more and more each day.
**
Based on current industry growth and production rates of about 3.2 per cent a year, the state’s 10,600 million tonnes of coal reserves would be exhausted by 2042, according to calculations done for the Hunter Community Environment Centre in Newcastle. Those figures, calculated by analyst Greg Hall using official resources figures, do not take into account faster production that may result from the expansion of coal-loading facilities at Newcastle.
Denialists try to portray the climate community as incredibly divided, and “believing in” global warming as a matter of choice to which climatologist you follow. Instead almost ALL scientific bodies agree with the basic premise!
Consider this: With the release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[72]
On the other hand, these are just *some* of the consenting scientific organisations that agree with global warming, and you’ll find it’s all the world’s most prestigious scientific organisations.
Since 2001, 32 national science academies have come together to issue joint declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, and urging the nations of the world to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. The signatories of these statements have been the national science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, the Caribbean, China, France, Ghana, Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, New Zealand, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
European Academy of Sciences and Arts,
InterAcademy Council,
Joint science academies’ statements
Network of African Science Academies
Royal Society of New Zealand
Polish Academy of Sciences
American Association for the Advancement of Science
European Science Foundation
National Research Council (US)
American Society for Microbiology
Australian Coral Reef Society
Institute of Biology (UK)
The Wildlife Society (international)
American Geophysical Union
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
Geological Society of America
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
American Meteorological Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
World Meteorological Organization
American Quaternary Association
International Union for Quaternary Research
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
American Statistical Association
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
On climate models: did you respect James Hansen for modelling a cooling due to volcanic aerosols? In 1988 he modelled climate with a volcanic eruption in the mid-90’s, just in case, to allow for a year or 2’s cooling. He scored! This is a Quality Youtube channel, I would not post any old Youtube junk here. He quotes quality papers, gets great video footage and nice graphics, and seems to know people in the climate industry for his sources. Check out “This year’s model” for a demonstration as to just how GOOD the modelling is getting! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Un69RMNSw&feature=player_embedded
Lastly: You’ve just repeated one of my FAVOURITE pieces of sceptic propaganda which is that warming ceased in 1998. This is an old myth that sceptics push and is one of the top 26 climate sceptic myths debunked by the May 2007 New Scientist article. So your myth is getting a bit old and tired now. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462
2. Sure the MET dataset shows “cooling” since 1998 but they still accept global warming because they actually look at the longer term CLIMATE trends rather than just narrowing in on the short term Southern Oscillation index trends.
I could make ANY story I want from the temperature record by choosing short enough trends. When are you going to look at the *15 and 20 year trends* instead of cherrypicking those *few* years that show the conclusions you want? http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20080923c.html
3. El Nino is returning in 2009 and combined with global warming could blow away all previous temperature records over the next few years. This fact leaves pushing the 1998 myth as so dangerous to the cause of sceptics that even fellow sceptics are starting to warn against using it. As I said above, at the 2009 Heartland Institute conference (of global warming sceptics), well known climate denialist Dr Patrick J Michaels explained that El Nino and La Nina cycles can, in the short term at least, disguise the longer term trends and concluded:
“Make an argument that you can get killed on and you will kill us all…
If you loose credibility on this issue you lose this issue!” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwnrpwctIh4
In 1998, did anyone in the AGW community predict that the world would not get any warmer in the following 10 years?
Anyone?
If anyone did, then I will respect that person’s predictions for the forthcoming 10 years.
Alan, I have to be honest that when I replied above I had not really looked into answering your actual question here. I’ll keep a look out, but generally speaking I think you’re either intentionally or unintentionally using a straw-man argument I keep coming across, which runs something like this:
“Temperature must ALWAYS rise in a neat, exact line following CO2, and if there is ANY variation in the system it must be predicted ahead of schedule.”
Firstly Alan: no climatologist on the planet says temperature will always exactly precisely follow Co2, in each and every season and year, because there ARE other forcings to account for as well, such as the La Nina and El-Nino effects. So while longer-term climate trends will move UP due to ever more Co2 in the atmosphere, if Denialists narrow in enough on shorter term trends, they really can make an argument that the earth is cooling (a few years here or there) because shorter term temperatures are always changing in response to other forcings.
15 to 20 year trends = climate change
5 to 10 year trends = other forcings
Secondly Alan: THEY DID IN FACT MODEL the 1998 El Nino super-spike temperatures followed by “cooling”. This is the “This Year’s Model” video I referred to above, but rather than focussing on James Hansen’s model this time I’d like you to check out the summary squiggles of the 58 climate models at about 8 minutes into the video. The majority appear to have nailed the fact that after a super-El Nino one can expect a La Nina, which will cool temperatures a bit, within the confines of the overall upward trend.
So to answer your question: DOZENS of climate models more or less predicted the 1998 spike and cooling. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Un69RMNSw
(I find cooling a bizarre term for the hottest decade on record, but that just illustrates how hot climate change + the worst El Nino on record in 1998 really was… it makes the hottest decade on record look “cool” by comparison, even though NASA says 2005 beat 1998. ;-)
Now, to everyone else:
a few recent studies have confirmed from ancient Co2 levels that the earth’s climate really is very sensitive to Co2 levels.
From Scientific American today: a study into sea-shell composition reveals:
The researchers first matched this fossil record secured by the Integrated Ocean Drilling Program Expedition in the western tropical Pacific to existing records from bubbles trapped in Antarctic ice cores that stretch back 800,000 years, which preserve a precise record of past atmospheric composition. Thus reassured of the technique’s accuracy, they plunged back into deep geologic time.
“Modern-day levels of carbon dioxide were last reached about 15 million years ago,” Tripati says, when sea levels were at least 25 meters higher and temperatures were at least 3 degrees C warmer on average. “During the middle Miocene, an [epoch] in Earth’s history when carbon dioxide levels were sustained at values similar to what they are today [330 to 500 ppm], the planet was much warmer, sea level was higher, there was substantially less ice at the poles, and the distribution of rainfall was very different.”
Studies into calcium carbonate in stalagmites also reveals surprising climate & rainfall sensitivity to Co2 even in the “normal” Co2 changes over the last 400 thousand years of earth-wobble induced ice-ages.
The rock record reveals that such rainfall changes occur at the same time as general alterations in the relative strength of sunlight hitting the planet thanks to periodic shifts in Earth’s orbit, known as Milankovitch cycles. At the same time as the solar heat increases, according to the monsoon record published in Science, CO2 levels also begin to rise.
“Climate systems are well linked worldwide, such as sea-level, CO2, ice sheet[s], the Asian monsoon, regional temperature and precipitation,” Cheng says. “So a change in one of them could trigger changes in others.” And that might mean the climate is too sensitive to tolerate current levels of CO2 without changing the conditions that have allowed human civilization to flourish in the past 10,000 years.
So stalagmites reveal rainfall sensitivity to Co2, and 15 million year old sea-shells tell us of catastrophic climate change around, or slightly above, today’s Co2 levels.
Thanks for the link Dannii. I especially liked the last paragraph :
I get exasperated with fellow academics, and others who ought to know better, who pile on to the supposed global warming consensus without bothering to investigate any of the glaring scientific discrepancies and procedural flaws. Over the coming few years, as the costs of global warming policies mount and the evidence of a crisis continues to collapse, perhaps it will become socially permissible for people to start thinking for themselves again. In the meantime I am grateful for those few independent thinkers, like Steve McIntyre, who continue to ask the right questions and insist on scientific standards of openness and transparency.
Doctor: “I’m telling you, you have cancer. You need to get into the chemo ward right now!”
Patient: “Sorry mate, it’s socially permissible for me to start thinking for myself again.”
Mechanic: “Looks like you’ve cooked it. The engine head needs replacing… it’s gonna be about $2400.”
Customer: “Sorry mate, it’s socially permissible for me to start thinking for myself again.”
Lawyer: “You HAVE TO tell us where you were that night. I don’t care if it’s embarrassing, we NEED to know your alibi or you’re GOING TO DEATH ROW!”
Plaintiff: “Sorry mate, it’s socially permissible for me to start thinking for myself again.”
There’s a fine line between independent thought and stubbornly refusing to listen to an expert. Many young scientists have started their studies critical of climate science and yet after studying all the data have become convinced “more or less” that there is enough evidence to take action. If us laymen have questions, fine, then ask them. But the evidence from these forums is that some people just refuse to accept what the data is telling them, no matter who puts the information across.
I’ve simply seen too much evidence from the climatologists discussing the spectrometry of greenhouse gases, the practical demonstrations as to how they trap heat, the Radiative Forcing Equation (which compares the heat trapped before the Industrial Revolution with now), and the reports of increasing heat in the oceans, increasing thermal expansion of the oceans, drastically thinning ice caps and glaciers, spread of bugs through Canadian forests that don’t freeze cold enough to kill them off anymore, increasing Co2 emissions from peat bogs, changing albedo of mountains losing their glaciers, and many, many other facets and effects of global warming.
I’ve also seen too much evidence of Denialist propaganda not just being wrong but being dishonestly pushed. Check the way Denialist Martin Durkin misquotes scientists in his “documentary” The Great Global Warming Swindle for example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle
If you missed it, you can watch this RUBBISH here again. http://www.abc.net.au/tv/swindle/ Every single argument in “the Swindle” was addressed by the peer reviewed science, repeatedly, as a matter of due process in studying climate science, before the movie was even thought of. Yet along come a few Denialists, cobble together some distorted information and bad graphs, and whack something that nearly had me joining the ranks of the Denialists… until I read through the literature and discovered that it was a pack of lies and half truths.
It might be socially permissible to think for yourself, but you’re kidding yourselves if you think crossing the line into stubborn refusal to accept the facts is anything other than diehard foolishness.
Note: I’m not saying I “KNOW” Global Warming scenario X, Y, or Z is an inevitable FACT for the future, as that would contradict what I also hold to be true from the wisdom literature of Proverbs and Ecclesiastes.
I’m just saying we have enough evidence, at this stage, to take action. I really do hope the peer reviewed literature discovers some amazing new climate ‘safety valve’ that gets us off the hook. But if you’re only frequenting Denialist blogs, or News stories that push an angle from Denialist blogs, then you are intentionally letting yourself get hoodwinked and I would have to ask what psychological barrier you have against accepting the “truth” (as far as humanity can know the truth on this matter).
I don’t understand why the self-styled sceptics aren’t consistent.
For example: The sharemarket has taken a big downturn in recent history. Yet how many on the right are saying that, after this downturn, not only do we have no way of knowing if the sharemarket will ever rise again, but all indications of increased wealth in the sharemarket over the past 100yrs+ are doubtful at best—relating to some other phenomena—and completely mythical at worst, captialism being an illusionary, global swindle perpetrated by vested interests in a vast, global conspiracy?
Don’t believe me that capitalism is a giant myth? Look at the latest graphs! Just don’t look too far back. Or forward. In fact, just look at one recent slice where things went down. See? Total myth!
A new Denialist myth sprang up overnight when Mojib Latif, a well known and respected global warming climatologist, modelled the *possibility* of cooling for the next decade (with it even being possible for the decade after but with far less certainty in his model) as the oceans circulate and soak up some of the excess heat.
He made the point that official climate organisations needed to study his model and be very careful about how they tell the climate story, because it is incredibly complex. Any deviation from a year-by-year gentle warming in absolute accordance with every minute increase in Co2 makes Denialists foam at the mouth, so the climate community had to be ready.
What happens?
The Denialista’s start foaming at the mouth. Check out this great video, and hear Mojib’s actual point which is that while the oceans might cool things for a bit, the overall trend once the oceans are warmer is up, up, up. (And harder to stop because the ocean’s retain their heat for so long).
Then watch the Denialists totally embarrass themselves as they display EXACTLY the behaviour Mojib predicted… which is to LATCH onto the shorter cooling phase, cherry-pick that, sneer, and then totally forget the rest of Latif’s modelling which basically says by 2100 we’re stuffed.
Save the planet: eat a dog?
By TANYA KATTERNS - The Dominion Post 22/10/2009
The eco-pawprint of a pet dog is twice that of a 4.6-litre Land Cruiser driven 10,000 kilometres a year, researchers have found.
Victoria University professors Brenda and Robert Vale, architects who specialise in sustainable living, say pet owners should swap cats and dogs for creatures they can eat, such as chickens or rabbits, in their provocative new book Time to Eat the Dog: The real guide to sustainable living.
The couple have assessed the carbon emissions created bypopular pets, taking into account the ingredients of pet food and the land needed to create them.
“If you have a German shepherd or similar-sized dog, for example, its impact every year is exactly the same as driving a large car around,” Brenda Vale said.
“A lot of people worry about having SUVs but they don’t worry about having Alsatians and what we are saying is, well, maybe you should be because the environmental impact ... is comparable.”
In a study published in New Scientist, they calculated a medium dog eats 164 kilograms of meat and 95kg of cereals every year. It takes 43.3 square metres of land to produce 1kg of chicken a year. This means it takes 0.84 hectares to feed Fido.
They compared this with the footprint of a Toyota Land Cruiser, driven 10,000km a year, which uses 55.1 gigajoules (the energy used to build and fuel it). One hectare of land can produce 135 gigajoules a year, which means the vehicle’s eco-footprint is 0.41ha – less than half of the dog’s.
They found cats have an eco-footprint of 0.15ha – slightly less than a Volkswagen Golf. Hamsters have a footprint of 0.014ha – keeping two of them is equivalent to owning a plasma TV.
Professor Vale says the title of the book is meant to shock, but the couple, who do not have a cat or dog, believe the reintroduction of non-carnivorous pets into urban areas would help slow down global warming.
“The title of the book is a little bit of a shock tactic, I think, but though we are not advocating eating anyone’s pet cat or dog there is certainly some truth in the fact that if we have edible pets like chickens for their eggs and meat, and rabbits and pigs, we will be compensating for the impact of other things on our environment.”
Professor Vale took her message to Wellington City Council last year, but councillors said banning traditional pets or letting people keep food animals in their homes were not acceptable options.
Kelly Jeffery, a Paraparaumu german shepherd breederwho once owned a large SUV, said eliminating traditional pets was “over the top”.
“I think we need animals because they are a positive in our society. We can all make little changes to reduce carbon footprints but without pointing the finger at pets, which are part of family networks.”
Owning rabbits is legal anywhere. Local bodies allow chickens, with some restrictions.
YOUR PET’S MARK
The eco-footprints of the family pet each year as calculated by the Vales:
German shepherds: 1.1 hectares, compared with 0.41ha for a large SUV.
Cats: 0.15ha (slightly less than a Volkswagen Golf). Hamsters: 0.014ha (two of them equate to a medium-sized plasma TV).
Goldfish: 0.00034ha (an eco-finprint equal to two cellphones).
I join with Inspector Rex in saying ... GRRRRRRR !!!!!
Ha! My parents LOVE Inspector Rex. I couldn’t quite adapt to the “kids puppy dog Inspector show” one minute, and “full frontal SBS nudity” the next. Not that I’m a prude and can go with the show if it is necessary, say certain episodes of “Spooks”. But Rex is too much like Lassie meets Jason Bourne. There’s a time and a place for saying, “It’s just not right!”
PS: There’s plenty of nutty stuff in the Greenie movement, just as there is in the church. The nuttiness of the extremists doesn’t disprove the core tenets of the more rational witnesses to certain events though.
Take away all the free money, and who’d be left to believe in a man-made climate catastrophe?
Europe is to breathe life into the faltering search for a new global deal on climate change by pledging billions of pounds in financial support for poor countries, the Guardian can reveal. European heads of state will formally recommend this week that rich countries should hand over around EUR100bn (£90bn) a year to nations such as India and Vietnam by 2020 to help them cope with the impact of global warming… Such a move would leave the US with a bill running to tens of billions a year, unlikely to go down well in Washington.
Also :
The European move marks the first formal recognition that rich countries will need to pick up the climate change bill prior to Copenhagen. Developing nations such as China and India have stressed that serious financial assistance is a prerequisite for any deal in Copenhagen.
How much will Kevin Rudd hand over from Australian taxpayers ? ( And when will learn the truth about HOW MUCH our taxes will increase with his proposed ETS ? )
I’d rather a simple carbon tax mainly hitting coal companies than this complicated hypocritical ETS. You don’t like the ETS because you’re not convinced on the science of global warming. I don’t like the ETS because I AM and the ETS just seems to reward the carbon emitters.
OK then, rather than a tax or ETS, let’s have a world government just legislate no new coal mines. Too easy!
While we are at it, I have a few simple LEGISLATIVE solutions that would not be too hard to accomplish or require a complicated ETS. (I mean, do we tax people if they fart too much? Exactly how many emissions do we really want to measure when the MAIN problem is coal, followed by oil, followed by gas?)
1. Ratify the Oil Depletion Protocol so that when peak oil hits, we don’t start a bidding war, or worse, a shooting war.
2. Legislate that all new cars in the personal transport market MUST be compatible with the Better Place international battery swap standards.
3. Rezone cities. Enact better town planning laws that create mixed use, dense and diverse no-car villages, with safe central plazas and all car access from the outside. (While homes all face the central plazas and parks on the inside). Achievable, bit by bit, as cities and suburbs always evolve.
4. Subsidise farmers and rural areas to develop hydrogen harvesters, or my favourite, local biochar power plants that can turn agri-waste into fuel and charcoal fertiliser.
I’d rather a simple carbon tax mainly hitting coal companies than this complicated hypocritical ETS. You don’t like the ETS because you’re not convinced on the science of global warming. I don’t like the ETS because I AM and the ETS just seems to reward the carbon emitters.
Actually, the reason that I don’t like the idea of an ETS is that ( even if one does believe in AGW ) an ETS does NOTHING to change the emissions - it just makes it initially dearer for the ‘operators/polluters’ - who then pass on their increased costs to the general population ( i.e. us consumers ) even if these consumers have adopted practices to use less energy etc. And then we RICH western countries DONATE BILLIONS of OUR $‘s to third world countries who are happily increasing THEIR emissions output.
No - it’s just a CON. Nothing really changes - except the flow of money and a REDISTRIBUTION of wealth from the rich west to the poor nations. In other words, this is a form of communism in disguise.
As to a world government - surely not. Have you read any of the warnings in Professor Monckton’s reports ?
Here’s an Australian article from yesterday : Beware UN’s Copenhagen plot link This article attracted 191 comments - a good chance to see what many others are thinking.
See also : ‘Global warming’ to be used as ‘pretext’ for ‘change’ to 1-world government link - and follow their links.
[ Edited: 30 October 2009 01:18 PM by Kevin Goddard]
[null]London 2012 Olympics: 'Snow bird' Skelton finds fabulous form in FloridaTelegraph.co.uk (blog)[{}]... owns most of the top rides of 2004 Olympic champion Rodrigo Pessoa); Tom Tisbo, CEO of Suncast, one of America's largest producer of domestic durables; and Kimberley Boyer, grand-daughter of the billionaire evangelical financier Robert Van Kampen.
[null]Mitt's Muffled SoulNew York Times[{}]Christ or Christianity came up repeatedly. Four years later, he still avoids the word, trumpeting his faithfulness without specifying the faith. What's surprising is that no one around him — not reporters, not rivals — talks about it all that much, ...
RSS Feed