Patrol 4x4 - Nissan Patrol Forum banner

For my fellow skeptics

5K views 97 replies 19 participants last post by  bloke83 
#1 ·
As you would be aware Ross Garnaut has produced another update to his 2008 climate change report, but wait there's more, there are another 7 to come, $$$$$$$$$. This recent review of his review is an interesting read for us skeptics.

You may remember Ross Garnaut was the chairman of Lihir Gold (Papua New Guinea) from 1995 to 2010, while they were complaining about Australian miners, I have spent a lot of time up there and if you knew some of the practises by gold mining companies there you would be shocked, not very climate change friendly even I will agree with that. He gave up his Chairmanship in 2010, I wonder why, conflict of interest.

He, Bob Down er Bob Brown should get under the same rock with Penny Wong.

Garnaut’s Updates – even more political - On Line Opinion - 7/2/2011
 
#2 ·
Like Gore, Garnaut has probably found a new way to milk the global warming scam and look squeaky clean. I wonder what Tim Flummery has up his sleeve, now that his last venture has evaporated like most green schemes.

Cheers

Ray
 
#4 ·
Don't you just hate these consultants, who are bought by the Government with our money, to produce a report that agrees with their political ideology.

Imagine if the consultant disagreed.......would he/she be asked to provide another report ever again?

When I was working a consultant was paid a ludicrous amount of money to examine the efficiency of our unit and make recommendations as to reform. He managed to blacken the reputation of one of the best units in Australasia and it made the papers. Our unit's international efficiency was recognised in international scientific journals.

The ***** was wrong and it took us three months of our valuable time and effort to prove it.

There was no apology from the consultant and the report was quietly shelved. No mention of the $300,000 the ***** was paid.

:headwall:
 
#5 ·
I must agree with Grafe' ssentiments on con-sultants. I used to be one. Whilst i'm a believer in climate change and our impacts upon it, i hate how it has be come a tool for politicians. Now people just ignore it, or look at the science from a single side and deny it is happening. People should take a skeptical approach to the scientific process - after all whait is science, but skepticism?- and make up their own minds.

However, when people jump on board to make a quick buck, they just add to the arguments agains the science through allowing themselves to be discredited, and in the process, the organisation they're working 'for'...
 
#7 ·
Climate change = Y2K with 10 years of development to work out how to con even more people out of even more money.
No, climate change atually happens - has been for ever. Y2K didn't and won't.
Climate change has been hijacked by both sides of politics and industry for profit.
 
#9 ·
Climate change has been hijacked by both sides of politics and industry for profit.
It's also being used by many (of the Left) for the basis of social engineering. That's why they're called Watermelons - Green on the Outside, Red on the Inside.

Cheers

Ray
 
#8 ·
'Climate change' is happening, your right. But it's got stuff all to do with us being here. The world is millions of years old and has been changing for that same amount of time, since it began.
We've only noticed the 'changing' in a poofteenth of the time the earth has been around, so it's a natural thing.
The 'climate change' bandwagon don't seem to realise that we as humans play an insignificant part in the way the world actually evolves.
'Climate changeer" - if it's hot it's our fault, if it's cold it's our fault. Get over it, like alot of other people they have to find someone to blame.
 
#11 ·
'Climate change' is happening, your right. But it's got stuff all to do with us being here. The world is millions of years old and has been changing for that same amount of time, since it began.
We've only noticed the 'changing' in a poofteenth of the time the earth has been around, so it's a natural thing.
I agree with you here mate.

The 'climate change' bandwagon don't seem to realise that we as humans play an insignificant part in the way the world actually evolves.
I think you're wrong on thius one though. What i think you're failing to realise is that the climate change 'bandwagon' as you call them don't think we're causing climate change, but affecting it. The effect the anthroposphere is having on the environment can be quantified. It's the politicians using it as a lever to gain votes from one another by preaching it or denigrating it depending on who's votes they value. It is not only measurable in the air, but look to populations and communities of different species of migratory moths and green tree frogs for example. We put pressure animals from a habitat perspective (destroying natural habitat for industry, housing), which changes local climatic conditions which has huge effects on the remaining creatures capable of living in urbanised areas. This is as the natural ecosysytem is replaced by concrete and bitumen, local average temperatures are altered due to higher / lower thermal retention - wich in turn can change local waether patterns. i.e. rain occurs more often on weekends then early in the week. This is due to particulate buildup in the atmosphere providing a 'nucleus' for water droplets to adhere to.

'Climate changeer" - if it's hot it's our fault, if it's cold it's our fault. Get over it, like alot of other people they have to find someone to blame.
This too, is all too true. But again, it is political bullshit.
 
#17 ·
The bloody planet has been hotter, colder and the sea levels have been higher and lower for crying out loud.:headwall:

Have a look at the suns' activity at the moment! This is what governs earths climate, along with the moon. It (the sun) is going through a cycle of high activity and has only started recently and they last for years.:rolleyes: The same cycle that happened in the late 60s to early 80s.:doh:

Humane cause pollution of the earth, along with volcanoes!:eyepoke:
 
#18 ·
Mic, I whole heartedly support the concept of sustainability.

But I simply do not accept any of the "facts" behind global warming and the alarmist false predictions in the IPCC report make it a joke of socialist european green movements.

The problem is that the Green party in australia has welded a link between sustainability and climate change as sustainability is a mainstream issue that people actually care about. Almost all businesses support sustainability as there is no point making money today if you cant make money tomorrow. Climate change is a fringe issue just like the greens are a fringe party.

We need to destroy the perception that sustainability is linked to climate change.
 
#22 ·
Mic, I whole heartedly support the concept of sustainability.

But I simply do not accept any of the "facts" behind global warming and the alarmist false predictions in the IPCC report make it a joke of socialist european green movements.

The problem is that the Green party in australia has welded a link between sustainability and climate change as sustainability is a mainstream issue that people actually care about. Almost all businesses support sustainability as there is no point making money today if you cant make money tomorrow. Climate change is a fringe issue just like the greens are a fringe party.

We need to destroy the perception that sustainability is linked to climate change.
Agree 100%. Climate change has been taken completely out of it's context and place n science to be made a political issue.

But the illustration that you made has nothing to do with global climatic changes, which is what the debate (if we were allowed to have one) is all about. I don't think what you said was intentional, but suggesting that micro-climatic changes, amongst other things, that affect local fauna and flora is related to global climatic changes, is verging on being deceitful. So again, I hope that's not what you intended.
I think debate is good - casting off is bad. My intention was to try to draw people who are ignorant of humanity's influence on the environments attetion. not to decieve. Sorry if you thought that was what i was trying to do. It's about attitudes, and too many people cast off the idea of climate change, humans role in habitat destuction and ecological economics because they are ignorant of their inputs. But to a certain degree it shows on a smaller scale that we DO impact the climate, but as already said, it is all part of a natural process.

But that there is another problem, these so called scientist measure changes at one locality and don't take into account the change at another to cause an equilibrium (not that they can measure environmental equilibrium anyway). They just look at the locations changing the most and say, "this is an example of the world". 2 years ago almost to the day, Victoria experienced a 48 degree day, also 3 or 4 years ago on Christmas day I went to the snow on Mt Donna Buang in Warburton, Victoria, Australia :wink:. So where was the change? It changed about 48 degrees in 2 years!!! PANIC STATIONS EVERYONE!!!!
Good examples, and good to see so many people who actually think about the bigger picture. We don't have to agree on everything :). We make our judgements based on the evidence befor us. i did a BSc in Ecology and Conservation Biology so my exposure to scientific studies would be different to yours. Now i work for an Oil company - I must admit, my attitudes have changed somewhat since graduating!
 
#21 ·
What is wrong with change, are we scared of sacrifice or interruptions to our routines? Things have changed for many millions of years and life has adapted.
 
#23 ·
There is one thing that makes me call this Climate change Crap a complete and utter sham:

The fact that the people supporting it and that saving the planet holds vast profits for governments and coporporations.
If it were really so Important, money would never enter into it.

Already there are huge profits being made on carbon taxes and offsets and they don't even yet exist!
Clearly if there are profits to be made, then we are being told a whole load of crap as to the cost of the soloution and with certainty the extent of the problem in as well.

Actually, there is also one other thing:

Having looked into this and researched it beyond just the headline media stories, the one thing that always comes across from the believers in climate change is the cost.
According to the proponents and pushers of the cause, it's a problem that is going to cost billions to fix. All sorts of taxes and levys and funds need to be applied to raise the money.
There are almost endless estimates of how much money this will take and where it needs to come from.

What I have yet to find, is an sort of plan of exactly how this money is to be spent to actually fix the problem.
There are some loose mentions of things like planting tress.
Fine.
How many trees?
What Kind?
Where do they need to be planted?
How many acres need to be planted?
Who is going to plant them?
How much will this cost?
When will the tress be planted?
When will they mature sufficently to start having a positive effect on the problem?
And so it goes.

But I have yet to find a single document that addresses the isue in any sort of ball park specifics as to how the money will be used and what the plans are to spend it on to cure the problem.
It's all one sioded in that the Problem will cost billons to fix, but never what the actual plans and initiatives are to spend it on.

There are mentions of things like Co2 Levys on electricity to offset the emissions of producing it. Lots of estimates on the incerease to power bills and how much revnue this will raise.
No where can I find anything that says what this money will be specificy spent on to fix the problem.
Will they use it to plant tress or dig carbon deposit wells or buy Lotto tickets or......???

And that I see is another indicator of a big scam. They know how much money it will take ( supposedly) to fix the problem, but they haven't got a plan on what to spend it on so how the hell did they come up with the costings in the first place?

If you rang a mechanic and said " my car is running hot" and they said it's going to cost $xxx to fix it and you asked what were they going to do, how long would it take to fix it and they didn't know, what would you think?? :rolleyes:

Amazingly, they want to do the exact same thing to the tune of billions with this global scamming crap.

It defies any sort of project planning, business practice or just common blood y sense! :rolleyes:
In 10-20 years this global scamming will be looked back on as the biggest scam in history but of course no one will ever admit to have supported or been in favour of it.

Before anyone will ever convince me this has any credibility, i'll be wanting to see the actual plans and specific ideas as to how the money is going to be spent and the projections of exactly what that investment will achieve.
Yep, the Government has a two step program for it, Step 1: Get carbon tax through, Step 2: Spend it recklessly. :rolleyes:
 
#24 ·
Glort, HeyHey,

You are right. Since the government has gotten hold of climate change and realises it pulls alot of heart strings, they've been using it as a tool for money and power. This soesn't mean we are not affecting the climate. Nor does it mean we cannot do our bit to look after the environment. I hate what the government has done. They've taken the onus off the people, are talking about taxing them and noe wonder why no one gives a shit. The gubbermint has turned scientific research into a cash cow... And it makes me really angry - not just the cash cow thing, but that many of my friends (and myself early on) were studying this phenomenon, tring to find explanations and means to reduce the human influence, but some pollies have hijacked it, and mis quoted/paid off/discredited hundreds of scientists...
 
#25 ·
Do a search on proposed dams in the Amazon. Mic, I am a confessed skeptic, I believe in global warming but also believe it is a natural occurrence, but that does not mean we can't do things to ease it.

Our government and Bob Down er Bob Brown, would have us paying billions in taxes to make localised changes which mean nothing (we contribute less than 1%), when there are 146 dam projects for the Amazon basin over the next 20 to 30 years, the latest one will see 500 square miles of Rain Forrest cleared and that is just one dam, I would much rather see some of our money helping to reduce this load on the environment.

This will impact much more than the dam in China and much more than a few diesel and petrol 4By's wandering around our highways.
 
#27 ·
Off course you're dead right, we cannot govern other countries but we can assist and encourage through foreign policy.

I am considering solar power for my house, my neighbor has a 5kwh unit that has been working for about 8 months and getting good results. We both have rainwater tanks we fitted a few years ago, we both have energy efficient globes and appliances, so many of us are already making changes to our lives. Will a carbon tax significantly reduce our impact on the world? I don't think so!

You raised a good point about peoples ignorance, so lets spend time and money on educating the masses, to me that is money well spent.
 
#29 ·
Off course you're dead right, we cannot govern other countries but we can assist and encourage through foreign policy.

I am considering solar power for my house, my neighbor has a 5kwh unit that has been working for about 8 months and getting good results. We both have rainwater tanks we fitted a few years ago, we both have energy efficient globes and appliances, so many of us are already making changes to our lives. Will a carbon tax significantly reduce our impact on the world? I don't think so!

You raised a good point about peoples ignorance, so lets spend time and money on educating the masses, to me that is money well spent.
I agree entirely. There are other thing we can do too, but whenever i mention them some people get upset and think i'm a preaching hippie LOL. But no a carbon tax will not do, but encouraging industry towards more environmentally responsible practices is good. Getting this right is the hard part...

I would rather see investment overseas to improve polluting practices as there is more to gain from my $. The more you improve the harder it gets to maintain momentum.
I agree to a degree - but how. Companies ship their manufacturing to said coutrie sbecause it is cheap. If it was to be more 'green' for lack of a better word, it would be more expensive... herin lies the paradox...
 
#28 ·
I would rather see investment overseas to improve polluting practices as there is more to gain from my $. The more you improve the harder it gets to maintain momentum.
 
#30 ·
What really irks me is that Labor and the Greens want to go it alone in the world with a Carbon Tax, because they feel they will have the moral high ground and this weird belief that the world will follow. Never mind the fact that it will make Australia internationally uncompetitive in just about any area of industry and thus ruin jobs and our standard of living, they still want to go ahead.

Australia is not the only country with iron ore, coal, gas, uranium etc, but it is one of the few countries that is internally safe, has a stable government, consistent economy, good infrastructure, reasonable pricing (and that includes all the support infrastructure) etc, which makes it attractive to deal with. Kill the pricing with a Carbon Tax (and a proposed Resources Tax) and kiss it all goodbye.

Cheers

Ray
 
#33 ·
What really irks me is that Labor and the Greens want to go it alone in the world with a Carbon Tax, because they feel they will have the moral high ground and this weird belief that the world will follow. Never mind the fact that it will make Australia internationally uncompetitive in just about any area of industry and thus ruin jobs and our standard of living, they still want to go ahead.Ray
The next few months should be very interesting politically, Gillard is not doing well, Blight has ditched the clean coal and some other smaller projects.

Makes you wonder, as we all know Krudd is basically a megalomaniac. From what I observed all he wanted was a role on the world stage in the UN, come hell or high water and he would do that through any means he could, global warming looked like a good opportunity for him.

OK he got the sack so it seems the "case" is not being pushed so hard now. Krudd will achieve his goal though, through the Foreign Affairs job he got at the expense of a real politician "Steven Smith".

As I said the next few months will be interesting when the choocks come home to roost. It's just a pity we don't have Joe Hockey on the other side.
 
#31 ·
Glort! You should learn to be a bit more succinct! LOL! :-D

Read through my posts again, and i think you'll see that you and i are on the same page... I DON'T think we should be paying off other governments to clean up their acts! I think each individual should do what they believe is responsible. Solar power is a start. Carbon tax as a load of BS. Emmissions targets is a way to go, tax breaks for those who acheive them also a consideration... But i'm no economist. I do my bit. And if everybody else did, then we'd be making a start. But the attitude of "ah! To hell with this - nobody else gives a chit" is a bit 16y/o for my liking...
 
#34 ·
Solar power is a start. Carbon tax as a load of BS. Emmissions targets is a way to go, tax breaks for those who achieve them also a consideration... But I'm no economist. I do my bit. And if everybody else did, then we'd be making a start. But the attitude of "ah! To hell with this - nobody else gives a chit" is a bit 16y/o for my liking...
Unfortunately, effective and efficient base load solar power is a long way off (if possible at all), the most effective and efficient base load power source (and the cleanest) is nuclear, but that's taboo in Australia (for now). Emissions (pollutants) are already stringently controlled when it comes to extant power sources, coal, gas etc (and that applies to any industry) but, unfortunately, CO2 has become an evil compound in the green movement (notwithstanding the fact that it's essential to life and is in reality a very small component of all greenhouse gasses), but few seem question this mantra.

The thing is, we are no longer an agrarian society where everyone has a plot of land, a cow, some chickens and whatever else and pretty much looks after themselves, with some bartering to cater for what they can't grow or make. Society now needs to be supported in the most effective and efficient manner possible, that's what spurred the industrial revolution. We can't go back and why would you? But what Labor and especially the Greens are trying to do is, in many ways, just that. Everyone needs to have a water tank, because we won't build dams. Everyone needs solar panels, because we won't allow the use of coal or nuclear. Everyone has to stop eating meat, because cows and sheep produce green house gasses. And so on and so on.

But most important of all, the third world wants to get out of their agrarian society and enjoy the long and healthy lives like we do. That means they want to have their own industrial revolution (and it's happening) and in many ways we are trying to stop them, but we won't. So token gestures that we make to appease our own guilty feelings (of which I have none), will have not the slightest influence on real or perceived climate change.

Cheers

Ray
 
#32 ·
Have they said precisely ( or otherwise) what they will do with the money this tax will raise to offet the problem they are charging it for or will it just go into general waste,,,,, err, pollies Wages,,,errrr,, general Revenue?
Therein lies the rub, it's all just going into consolidated revenue, with no focus on effective projects/programs. All extant green schemes have failed miserably, so they'll either keep pouring good money after bad (Labor is very good at that), or create new cash cows for others to milk.

Is it any wonder that the groups most supportive of the Carbon Tax are international bankers, financiers and the like? The European Union instigated a carbon offsets program a few years ago and have currently closed it off, as it's being rorted so deeply that they don't even know the extent of corruption involved. But hey! Australia will be completely immune to such things, won't it?

Cheers

Ray
 
#36 ·
My old physics teacher once told me that more radioactive isotopes are produced through burning coal than in a Nuclear fission reactor producing the same amount of electricity
Coal Combustion - ORNL Review Vol. 26, No. 3&4, 1993
The Pros and Cons of Nuclear Energy

One question, what are the production, installation, maintenance and decommissioning costs to production of energy of any alternative sources of energy? How much goes into making a solar panel that doesn't produce very much power that only lasts 10 years, then how is it desposed of?
 
#40 ·
No, its not that as much as they are preaching a feel good theroy that everyday practice makes a complete mockery of the theroy ever being effective or worthwhile.

Untill the waste is stopped and everyone is on the same page, the rest is completely irrelevant.
Exactly, but someone needs to start writing the new page. Cultural changes take time. THey don't happen overnight.
 
#43 ·
No one to love you then hey Yom?

Don't worry. Despite my personal beliefs, i won't judge your love for the bovine.:p
 
#47 ·
So why not invest in a disposal method rather than other alternative means of energy production. At least the by product would be useful then.
 
#51 ·
Mic,

Can you please how we can economically replace fossil fuels for the following:

- large ships (currently bunker C fuel oil)

- small ships (diesel, coal or bunker C)

- regional rail freight and road freight (currently diesel)

- reliable base load power generation (currently black/brown coal and gas)

- aircraft (Avgas or kero)

Without continuing to burn fossil fuels or going nuclear. And why cant we just bury nuclear waste from we mined uranium in the first place?
 
#53 ·
Mic,

Can you please how we can economically replace fossil fuels for the following:

- large ships (currently bunker C fuel oil) Big Nuclear

- small ships (diesel, coal or bunker C) Small Nuclear

- regional rail freight and road freight (currently diesel) Medium Nuclear

- reliable base load power generation (currently black/brown coal and gas) Small Nuclear

- aircraft (Avgas or kero) Very light, very small Nuclear

Without continuing to burn fossil fuels or going nuclear. And why cant we just bury nuclear waste from we mined uranium in the first place?
Didn't you see the "Big Bus"

Sorry!
 
#52 ·
What's great about this forum is that one can actually debate the pros and cons of Gerbil Worming without being censored, which one cannot do in the MSM. Right or wrong, we can state our opinion and all we have to deal with are the believers and put them down to our hearts content. :D

Cheers

Ray
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top