An Inconvenient truth?

[Jackinthebox]

Just wondering if you have seen this movie/doco by Al Gore yet?

As fishos, we all need a healthy environment to enjoy our pastime. Unfortunately, half the people who vote for the Greens want to do the right thing but have no bloody idea about what really makes a difference. For example, green zones that cause us major problems, not to mention seriously affect local economies, are just like pissing in the wind compared to the bigger problems facing this planet.

I urge you all to go and see it with your families and leave any cynicisms at the door. This is a very interesting show and Al Gore has laid it all out with real data that has been drowned out with static and misinformation by very powerful forces

You'll be surprised by the real facts.

Cheers,

Mick(Non tree-hugger - but care about the world I leave my kids)

[rick_k]

or it could be b.s. Al is after all a politician.

10 000 years ago we could have walked to Moreton Island. 40 000 to Tassie and New Guinea. That last was because Birmingham, according to Mr Attenborough, was under 1 mile of ice.

The world ain't a static place, and it has proved to be not all that friendly to those who live on it.

Still, if we could make a difference, and for the better, that would be good.

Rick K

[reelcrazy]

In Gore's instance, I'd say let your B.S. detectors be your guide.

There is considerable science refuting a lot of the junk science claims made by the environment movement.

Anyone looking for a good perspective on this should read Michael Crichton's - State of Fear.

I like Crichton, he does his research and while fiction, what he writes is so close to fact, the two are indistinguishable. I heartily recommend this book.

With attribution to his book State of Fear - I quote from part of the books appendix. Crichton uses the appendices to detail and record his research. You have to read this in it's entirety to get the broadest sense of how we are being misled by the environment movement, certain academics, Hollywoods rich and vacuous, not to mention politicians whose political star is fading.

Quote:

<<<We need to start remembering that everybody who said that Y2K wasn’t a real problem was either shouted down, or kept off the air. The same thing is true now of issues like species extinction and global warming. You never hear anyone say it’s not a crisis.

I won’t go into it, because it might lead to the use of facts, but I’ll just mention two reports I speculate you haven’t heard about.

The first is the report in Science magazine January 18, 2001 (Oops! a fact) that contrary to prior studies, the Antarctic ice pack is increasing, not decreasing, and that this increase means we are finally seeing an end to the shrinking of the pack that has been going on for thousands of years, ever since the Holocene era. I don’t know which is more surprising, the statement that it’s increasing, or the statement that its shrinkage has preceded global warming by thousands of years.

The second study is a National Academy of Sciences report on the economic effects to the U.S. economy of the last El Nino warming event of 1997. That warming produced a net benefit of $15 billion to the economy. That’s taking into account $1.5 billion loss in California from rain, which was offset by decreased fuel bills for a milder winter, and a longer growing season. Net result: $15 billion in savings.

The other thing I will mention to you is that during the last 100 years, while the average temperature on the globe has increased just .3 degrees C, the magnetic field of the earth declined by 10%.

This is a much larger effect than global warming and potentially far more serious to life on this planet. Our magnetic field is what deflects lethal radiation from space. A ten percent reduction of the earth’s magnetic field is extremely worrisome.

But who is worried?

Nobody. Who is raising a call to action? Nobody. Why not? Because there is nothing to be done. How this may relate to global warming I leave for you to speculate on your own.
Personally, I think we need to start turning away from media, and the data shows that we are doing just that, at least from television news. I find that whenever I lack exposure to media I am much happier, and my life feels fresher.>>>

end quote.

[MyEscape]

Yes there's a lot of talk about whether global warming is a fact or not. There's an interesting website that I check out for weather predictions at http://www.predictweather.com/

It's done by a NZ man called Ken Ring who is spot on with the weather and also has some interesting views on global warming.

An interesting view that I heard some 20 years go was that gloal warming debate has been caused by the UN wanting to have an equal living stanard for all people. The only way to acheive this is to reduce ours down to the third world, as there is no way to increase the living standard of theirs to ours.

Regards
Steve

[DICER]

Field reversal may not happen so quick and may not happen within 2000 yrs! But something is happening in the artic.......

You quote "nothing to be done" by Michael Crichton. Do you really believe that, and wish to tell your kids that!! Perhaps Michael Crichton's should stick his fingers in his cake hole.

Ice the size of Texas melts in one year
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19125702.800

Winter Arctic sea ice in drastic decline
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn10072-winter-arctic-sea-ice-in-drastic-decline.html

Greenland ice cap may be melting at triple speed
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn9717-greenland-ice-cap-may-be-melting-at-triple-speed.html

Glacial earthquakes rock Greenland ice sheet
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn8889-glacial-earthquakes-rock-greenland-ice-sheet.html

Antarctic ice sheet is an 'awakened giant'
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn6962-antarctic-ice-sheet-is-an-awakened-giant.html

Broken ice dam blamed for 300-year chill
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn8558-broken-ice-dam-blamed-for-300year-chill.html

Failing ocean current raises fears of mini ice age
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn8398-failing-ocean-current-raises-fears-of-mini-ice-age.html

Climate warning as Siberia melts
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg18725124.500-climate-warning-as-siberia-melts.html

Peat bogs harbour carbon time bomb
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6124

Captain Cook's logs tell magnetic tale
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19025526.200-captain-cooks-logs-tell-magnetic-tale.html

[Jeremy]

Field reversal may not happen so quick and may not happen within 2000 yrs! But something is happening in the artic....... #

You quote "nothing to be done" by Michael Crichton. Do you really believe that, and wish to tell your kids that!! #Perhaps Michael Crichton's should stick his fingers in his cake hole.

Ice the size of Texas melts in one year
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19125702.800

Winter Arctic sea ice in drastic decline
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn10072-winter-arctic-sea-ice-in-drastic-decline.html

Greenland ice cap may be melting at triple speed
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn9717-greenland-ice-cap-may-be-melting-at-triple-speed.html

Glacial earthquakes rock Greenland ice sheet
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn8889-glacial-earthquakes-rock-greenland-ice-sheet.html

Antarctic ice sheet is an 'awakened giant'
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn6962-antarctic-ice-sheet-is-an-awakened-giant.html

Broken ice dam blamed for 300-year chill
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn8558-broken-ice-dam-blamed-for-300year-chill.html

Failing ocean current raises fears of mini ice age
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn8398-failing-ocean-current-raises-fears-of-mini-ice-age.html

Climate warning as Siberia melts
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg18725124.500-climate-warning-as-siberia-melts.html

Peat bogs harbour carbon time bomb
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6124

Captain Cook's logs tell magnetic tale
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19025526.200-captain-cooks-logs-tell-magnetic-tale.html


Nature is THE TOP peer-reviewed scientific journal today. New Scientist is just a bunch of reviews which is not peer-reviewed (from memory). Just the same as any other media which has to make stories to sell advertising space. I'll believe Nature myself thanks.

Jeremy

[imnotoriginal]

I'm sorry, but the part about global warming helping the Californian economy...come on, how short-sighted and inward-looking can Michael Crichton be? El Nino may have reduced the fuel bill in the US but it sure as hell buggered plenty of people, including the commercial fishing industries in South America and has also been linked to massive floods in Europe and droughts in Australia. It is having a rapid and destabilising effect on our weather. Finding one benefit amidst plenty of problems does not make it a positive occurrence.
Joel

[craftycarp]

An inconvenient truth is exactly that! People will refuse to believe it because deep down we are all human and greedy and we all want whats best for us and our family. We want the best car, nice house etc. This is all normal human behaviour. Lets forget about the global warming debate for a second, how about this FACT? When Al Gore was born there were about 2.5 billion people on the planet, now there are what 6-7 billion? If he lives another 10-15 years there will be 10. That is one generation. Whats the world going to be like when our kids are our age? I have a child on the way, what changes is this child going to see in his/her lifetime? With that exponential population growth. He/she can expect to be sharing the planet with what 25-30 billion? and if we dont find an alternative to the fuels we use they will all be driving cars that burn fossil fuels. Anyway thats the bit that freaked me out.

[imported_admin]

Saw it tonight, would suggest that if you haven't seen it yet that you get to see it.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it" - Upton Sinclair


Info on the movie can be seen at - http://www.climatecrisis.net/

[reelcrazy]

Good debate.

We need some more fuel for the controversy. A few more "inconvenient truths" follow.

------

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_ice_age

"End of Little Ice Age

Beginning around 1850, the world's climate began warming again and the Little Ice Age may be said to have come to an end at that time. Some global warming skeptics believe that the Earth's climate is still recovering from the Little Ice Age and that human activity is not a decisive factor in present temperature trends. There is a wide debate among climate scientists, however, whether the present sharp upturn in temperatures is caused primarily by the increased proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere caused by human activity."

(Here's one for the pom's. In the medieval warm age and much to the consternation of the French vignerons, excellent wine was being exported to France from Northern England)


-----

http://www.predictweather.com/global_warming/index.asp

"Fact: Many scientists argue correctly that natural variations in climate are considerable and not well understood. But the Earth has gone through warming periods before without human influence. According to satellite data, air temperatures in the lower atmosphere have not increased appreciably and the sea ice around Antarctica has actually been growing for the past 20 years. Satellite data from NASA says the Earth has only heated by 0.04 of one degree in the last century, that which would be expected from natural fluctuation causes. This data conflicts with that of land-based thermometers and so is not released widely. But landbased measurements are less accurate because they are taken from cities, which are getting warmer all the time due to their expansion and replacing of trees and grasslands with asphalt.(source: science@NASA, October 20th, 2000)

Satellite data gives more of a global picture. 75% of the earth is covered by oceans. Of the rest, nearly 3% is covered by ice and of the remaining 24% less than 2% is habitable, when you take out swamps, deserts, lakes, ranges etc. In fact we live only on 1.4% of the surface of the Earth, hardly representative of the planet. According to National Geographic, all of Earth's metropolitan areas would only fit into an area less than the size of Spain. It is only a human vanity to imagine that our relatively small inhabited percentage of global surface has the ability to alter the climate of the whole planet. If we only occupy 1.8%, that means 98.6% of Earth is uninhabited.

Nearer to the truth is that the climate has always had its ups and downs. In 1100 AD the Earth enjoyed a much warmer environment than it does now - closer to a Meditterranean climate in the north of England. Around 549AD it appears a fireball may have swept through much of Europe, melting the facias of some castles. For many years the Vikings wandered around in their shirtsleeves. The Great Fire of London in 1666 came in a year of tremendous drought. This century just gone saw higher temperatures and heavy droughts around particular recurring years. Each drought in the past was described as the worst in living memory. But there is a simple mathematical pattern here."


more to come.

[DICER]

It was never claimed that the New Scientist was the top most journal. Not everyone wants to read and try to comprehend the data in an article or letter published in Nature? Moreover a majority of the people on this site do NOT have access to this elite journal. Therefore the New Scientist links were posted as it draws on a variety of different journals (including Nature, Science etc), review articles and institutional data from around the world, which maybe of general interest.

Nature and Science group of journals are advertising journals! Whatever!

Sometimes the word "gagged" comes to mind when I think of CSIRO and a few govermental departments.

[rough_shag]

It's a trend in the modern world that a large proportion of people have lost the ability to think for themselves in an independent manner and the world's media is very happy to make trillions and weild their power by FEEDING us their heavily vetted information.If the media want us to believe something for their own reasons they will present a totally BIASED story/program which is cleverly angled using highly manipulated statistics/images etc to convince the gullible recipient of the point of view they want to be accepted as FACT.
The so called global warming issue is only one of many which simply do not stand up once subjected to REAL scientific research,but of course it's easier to sit glued to a cinema screen and be fed SCAREMONGERING NONESENSE than to actually make an honest effort to research an issue BEFORE a person BELIEVES what they are being FED by media etc who have their own agendas.
As mentioned elsewhere on this thread the world/universe is in a constant state of change,even our sun pulsates in a changing cycle which effects us all.Changes to our planet systems cannot be measured in decades or even hundreds of years because most changes occur within a geological time scale over HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF YEARS and although these are natural changes they aren't always 'life friendly'.
One example of the emmissions debate is the fact that a natural event in the 1980's (Mt St Helens erruption) actually sent more carbon emmissions(and other toxic gasses etc) into the atmosphere than the entire U.S.A did in the decade of the 1970's!!!, and that was a relatively tiny erruption in Earth's geology.
We should all be careful what we believe and seek the WHOLE TRUTH looking at the BIG PICTURE and not accept as fact something which is yet to be proven and agreed upon as fact by the wider scientific community after unbiased research.Jace.

[el_carpo]

Are we heating up the earth with pollution? No idea. Too much political cr@p and personal interests getting thrown into the mix to get a clear view of the real deal.


HOWEVER.............

Are we polluting the air, land and water with pollution? Yes.

Is our dependance on foreign powers (some of whom hate our guts) to provide us with our fuel a good thing? No.

Can we do things to better conserve our resources? Yes.

Do we want a better world for the kiddies (even the rotten, little brat who called me stupid-looking while waiting in line at the grocery store)? Yes, but I sure would have liked to smack that little snot in the head. >:( ;D ;D ;D


That's how I view the subject. I have a built in mistrust of anything with such a political/economic aura about it.

I don't know if we're heating up the world but I do know that I wouldn't drink ANY water from the Cal-Sag cannal. We did that with our eyes wide open----- and that is a shame.

EC

[where_is_dave]

Some more fuel for the debate. These are excerpts from Greenspirit.com a Patrick Moore's (one of the founders of GreenPeace) website. He holds balanced views and opinions of which I must say I agree with in the main. He split from GreenPeace as he opposed the extreme anti everything philosophy that took over the organisation

There is a lenghty discussion in 'Environmentalism for the 21st Century' worth a look.

As we begin the 21st century, environmental thinkers are divided along a sharp fault line. There are the doomsayers who predict the collapse of the global ecosystem. There are the technological optimists who believe that we can feed 12 billion people and solve all our problems with science and technology. I do not believe that either of these extremes makes sense. There is a middle road based on science and logic, the combination of which is sometimes referred to as common sense. There are real problems and there is much we can do to improve the state of the environment.

to be continued...

[where_is_dave]

Next extract fits the topic nicely

website is: http://www.greenspirit.com/index.cfm

Climate change is a wonderful example to demonstrate the limitations of science. There are two fundamental characteristics of climate change that make it very difficult to use the empirical (scientific) method to predict the future. First there are simply too many uncontrollable variables -- the empirical method works best when you can control all the variables except the one you are studying. Second, and even more significant, is the fact that we have only one planet to observe. If we had 50 planet Earths and increased the carbon dioxide levels on 25 of them, leaving the other 25 alone, we might be able to determine a statistical difference between the two samples. With only one Earth, we are reduced to complex computer models of questionable value, and a lot of guesswork.

[imported_admin]

Seems there is a lot of missinformation out there regarding this subject and even about the movie.

Would suggest that before you comment on what is or is not in the movie that you go and see it. Then you can be more informed on what you are commenting on. You will see that some of the content that is stated not to be in the movie is actually in there.

[DICER]

Guesswork? How many scientists are actually working on climate change right now? And how much time have super computers spent performing climate change models? On my opinion, I don't think it's been a wasted effort, rellegated to a comment just like "that there are too many uncontrollable variables".

What we do have is massive amounts of data on the past and present, in the form of ice cores, biochemical, geochemistry and isotopic data. How well a computer model predicts aspects of climate change is very much dependent on good and accurrate data collected by excellent scientists.

Perhaps it is better just to look at one simple fact. Breakup of the Ross Ice Shelf in Antartica. Iceberg B-15, broke away earlier, and was 160 km in length before it later snapped in two (not shown). See the later parts of the breakup at:

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=6779

[rough_shag]

Many techniques which help us see into the past such as deep ice cores etc have shown movements of temperature in both directions-warmer and cooler.The Earth's temperature has increased in the past long before human influences and the reasons for this are many and varied, so it's not as simple as selecting the data which supports your doomsday theory and ignoring any data which doesn't.And besides which there is no universal rule which says the planet has to follow past trends is there?.It is also a fact that extinction of various species and the rise of others is a natural process which has been taking place for millions of yrs, so it could be said that people trying to save a species from extinction are actually working against nature!!.Regardless of how unpalatable these things are we have to face the fact that this is how nature works regardless of whether it is conducive to human life or not.
No doubt everything we do on the planet has some effect or other on our ecosystems and we should try to work more with the natural environment but to be really successful at that we would have to change human nature and that will never happen.Oh well unless we use technology to get off this planet and colonise others we are all doomed to extinction ourselves anyway albeit millions of yrs in the future,but it is scientific fact that the sun will run out of it's hydrogen fuel and eventually die!.
So my suggestion is that we all get as much fishing in now while we still can!!.Jace.

[where_is_dave]

"Perhaps it is better just to look at one simple fact. Breakup of the Ross Ice Shelf in Antartica."

I agree lets look at fact - from http://www.atsr.rl.ac.uk/images/sample/ross/index.shtml

"It is unlikely that this particular event is connected to global warming as the advance of the icesheet is a continual process. Even with the calving of this monster, the edge of the ice-shelf has simply returned to where it was about 50 years ago."

The good and accurate data from the excellent scientists is part of the issue with so much conflicting info who do you believe.

We have to minimise our impact on the environment but in the end we (humans) are a part of the environment.
Who is to say that the up turn in temperatures is not a cyclic thing that is ongoing?

[Ozwald]

The beauty of science is that it possible to start out with a multitude of opinions and apply "scientific method" to your opinion or idea ( Sicentific method = "principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses"). if your idea, opinion or hypothesis is good and you provide results to prove it, which other people can replicate, then scientific opinion tends to agree with you. Any discussion about climate change shouldnt therefore be based on individual scientific papers but on the concensus of opinion of a large and wide ranging body of experts in a wide variety of fields. My reading of current opinion is that global warming is real, but the severity of the impacts are still open to debate. Personally I feel we should be erring on the side of caution until we know more about what may or may nort happen.
Some eminent panels that provide an overview of current knowledge can be found at
http://www.ipcc.ch/
http://www.nationalacademies.org/

There is a small minority of Ausfish posters who might also be interested in the following
http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/

Oz

[DICER]

Eat your words!

The Bush administration has blocked release of a report that suggests global warming is contributing to the frequency and strength of hurricanes, the journal Nature reported Tuesday.

From Nature .....
Is US hurricane report being quashed?
NOAA scientists say political appointees blocked climate change message.
26 September 2006
http://www.nature.com/news/2006/060925/full/443378a.html

Unfortunate that most people can't read this article in Nature. So here's another link:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/09/26/hurricane.report.ap

The question is how can NOAA not take an official position on the issue?

[DICER]

Alarming surge of a potent greenhouse gas


MOUNT Zeppelin on the Arctic island of Ny-Alesund, part of Norway, is a watchtower of climate change. Instruments on its summit consistently detect the world's highest concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Now it is recording an alarming surge in a far more powerful greenhouse gas, called HFC134a. Just one molecule has a warming effect more than a thousand times that of a molecule of CO2.

Since the ban on the chemically related CFCs, HFC134a has been manufactured in ever growing quantities for use in air conditioning systems in cars and buildings. The Norwegian Institute for Air Research says concentrations of the gas above Mount Zeppelin doubled between 2001 and 2004.
“This gas has a warming effect on the planet more than a thousand times that of CO2”

Manufacturers of air conditioners say their systems are designed to prevent leaks. "The rapid increase shows that whatever the industry claims, the gases are not being contained," says Chris Rose of the Multisectoral Initiative on Potent Industrial Greenhouse Gases, based in London.

From issue 2571 of New Scientist magazine, 30 September 2006, page 6

[mowerman]

have a look at this article and read the transcrpit.http://www.aefweb.info/media784.html

[DICER]

And how many billion tons of carbon have we dug up from the ground?

Sorry mowerman I have trouble believing the article you posted. It's very short sighted.

[mowerman]

The truth....what a load of rubbish.

The media and so called sientists delight in saying.
"Its the hottest day on record" or "they are the worst storms ever recorded"

The reliable records for Australia go back 120 to 150 years. WOW.
What happened 250 or 350 or 10050 years ago.
Did anyone see the news report on cores taken from dead coral on th GBR.
The drought we are in now is nothing compared to the one from 1620 to 1640. Wonder if they had "the hottest day on record"

A little known fact from the time of Copernicus.( if you dont know who he was,,,look it up).
The gravitational pull from the other bodies in the solar system ,mainly the sun and moon, causes the earths axis to wobble as it rotates.
The axis stays at 23 and bit degrees but this wobble causes it to rotate in a circle that takes approx 23,000 years. Which means that in about 11,500 years our summer will be in june, as it was 11,500 years ago.

And ,it has been shown that the last ice age took 18 months from bright and sunny to shit its cold. that was 20,000 years ago. Its coming round again.

Climate change? Yes probable
Can we change it? Not a hope in hell
Is man responsible? Yet to be convinced.

Now...Where are my snowshoes.

[PinHead]

Alarming surge of a potent greenhouse gas


MOUNT Zeppelin on the Arctic island of Ny-Alesund, part of Norway, is a watchtower of climate change. Instruments on its summit consistently detect the world's highest concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Now it is recording an alarming surge in a far more powerful greenhouse gas, called HFC134a. Just one molecule has a warming effect more than a thousand times that of a molecule of CO2.

Since the ban on the chemically related CFCs, HFC134a has been manufactured in ever growing quantities for use in air conditioning systems in cars and buildings. The Norwegian Institute for Air Research says concentrations of the gas above Mount Zeppelin doubled between 2001 and 2004.
“This gas has a warming effect on the planet more than a thousand times that of CO2”

Manufacturers of air conditioners say their systems are designed to prevent leaks. "The rapid increase shows that whatever the industry claims, the gases are not being contained," says Chris Rose of the Multisectoral Initiative on Potent Industrial Greenhouse Gases, based in London.

From issue 2571 of New Scientist magazine, 30 September 2006, page 6


R134A is only a minor refrigerant and not used in a great deal of applications. As it is a zeotrope then it should break down quickly in the atmosphere...plus..it has no chlorine such as R12 had. But..scientists can come up with all sorts of amzing data when required. It is akin to the banning of R12...all the hype that is was blowing holes in the ozone layer..it has been banned for years and still little if any change in the hole in the ozone layer...lots of it is all corporation driven. Consider that R12 cost about $8 per kilo to buy...R22 which will be banned in 2015 costs about $14 per kilo and the new R410A(which is supposed to be environmentally friendly at this stage) is about $40 per kilo..makes you wonder who is making the big bucks on all this.

[madmix]

So with all this wonderful science, climateology/meteorology,
that is apparently so effective at predicting the destruction
of civilisation at our own hands.

Why can't they tell me if the weather will be good for
fishing next Friday?????

It seems that as they are blowing their own horns, I feel
a warm draft creeping up my AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH


cheers Mick

[DICER]

I'm not worried about the cost of refrigerants - but geez it's great the can detect it in the artic !!!!

[madmix]

Hi Dicer,

maybe that is why it is so bloody cold there.

[SeaHunt]

R...E...L...A...X
We are ALL going to die.

The planet will fix itself up after we are gone.
Till then I'm fishing. 8-)

[where_is_dave]

I'm booking my ice fishing trip to Lake Eyre today

[tunaman]

SEAHUNT. Theres a lot more truth to that than you might think. #The planet has been changing for hundreds of millions of years, and it true that the human race with it's pollutants have pressed the accellerator, but nothing on this earth will stop the power of mother nature, #and we are just at the beginning of a new cycle, but i am confident to say we will live the last of the good life.
There is no point in worrying about it, the out come is inevatable, and as Charles Darwin said, no spieces lasts forever, and one day we to will go the way of the dinosaurs.
It's only been by pure chance that the human race has lasted this long. #
So why worry, live life to the fullest, and dont waste a minute,
its better to go fishing than worrying about the end of the world.

I have a old saying. Go fast , Go hard, and dont look back,
coz if you do, you might run into a tree ;D


PS #Extinction is a part of life.


signed tunaman

[Fat Chilli]

Yep Evolution you can't stop it but maybe we are speeding it up?
All of the geologists I worked for/with in Northern Manitoba (a tad below the Arctic circle) believed/stated that we were still coming out of an ice age. Their opinions not mine.

Just because we have what we believe to be technology (to measure change) why should the world stop evolving?

[tunaman]

Yes , but as far as the human race is concerned, evolving into what.
Whats inconvenient is, that theres to many of us.
I beleve we are causeing our own extinction.
The greed of big business and industral growth relies on more people
to make money. But at what cost.

Sorry that Iam off the subject a little.


signed tunaman

[nonibbles]

I've been changing since before I was born. Its a crisis! I could die at any moment. This is 100% true. You must save me. You will feel better for it. Future generations will thank you for what you've done. Based on the precautionary principle you can't afford to ignore this risk. Do something now. Please send your donations to nonibles@gullible.com.au ;)

[tunaman]

ooooooow, thats funny! Would you like cash or moneyorder. ;D I can really see the point in saving you. ;)






signed tunaman :)

[SeaHunt]

You are basically right Tunaman.
But the human race has all but stopped evolving and will probably die out buy itself in another few thousand years, or sooner.
Ever stopped to think how many diseases wild animals get compared to us? :-?
I don't think there are too many mentally retarded or spastic lions out there.
Scientist are not doing us any favours as a species by curing illness that would normally kill weaker individuals or prolonging the lives of the sick long enough to breed more genetic defects. It is no longer survival of the fittest but survival of the richest.
Its just a matter of time.

[PinHead]

You are basically right Tunaman.
But the human race has all but stopped evolving and will probably die out buy itself in another few thousand years, or sooner.
Ever stopped to think how many diseases wild animals get compared to us? #:-?
I don't think there are too many mentally retarded or spastic lions out there.
Scientist are not doing us any favours as a species by curing illness that would normally kill weaker individuals or prolonging the lives of the sick long enough to breed more genetic defects. It is no longer survival of the fittest but survival of the richest.
Its just a matter of time.

interesting concept..I don't know if you have any offspring..if you do...did you check out the genetic make up of the mother to ensure oyu were not breeding on majot faults...or did you allow to override these by having dominant genes to counter act all her bad points? No? None of us do yet any time I have bought pedigree dogs I spend lots of time poring over the pedigree and ensuring that ny faults are being overridden by a dominant "good" gene. Humans are the worst breeders on the planet.

[tunaman]

The bottom line is, we really need to get off this rock, and find a new place to live. Cause if the world could bleed the oceans would be red with blood. Scientists say in 50 to 100 thousand years time, the whole worlds race will be one. Gennetic cross breeding can have disasterious results. Once the species numbers is down to it final few, extinction is inevetable. The laws of nature does dictate who lives and who dies, but the human race is a very tough species, I guess that's why we are at the top of the food chain. But what i'm worried about is that the world is well over due for it's next global change. Nasa scientists are spending huge amounts of money for space travel and finding another blue planet which is simular in size and conditions. So if they are doing this with such urgency, it's fair to say that they are worried about something. I do believe they are thinking on the lines of, if another global disaster happens we have nowhere else to go and all we have learned will have been done for nothing. If you look at the news they will tell you 40% of whats really going on, because thats all their aloud to say. If the real truth would send the world into a panic.

signed tunaman

[PinHead]

The bottom line is, we really need to get off this rock, and find a new place to live. Cause if the world could bleed the oceans would be red with blood. Scientists say in 50 to 100 thousand years time, the whole worlds race will be one. Gennetic cross breeding can have disasterious results. Once the species numbers is down to it final few, extinction is inevetable. The laws of nature does dictate who lives and who dies, but the human race is a very tough species, I guess that's why we are #at the #top of the food chain. But what i'm worried about is that the world is well over due for it's next global change. Nasa scientists are spending huge amounts of money for space travel and finding another blue planet which is simular in size and conditions. So if they are doing this with such urgency, it's fair to say that they are worried about something. I do believe they are thinking on the lines of, if another global disaster happens we have nowhere else to go and all we have learned will have been done for nothing. If you look at the news they will tell you 40% of whats really going on, because thats all their aloud to say. If the real truth would send the world into a panic.

signed tunaman






seems like conspiracy theories and urban myths are alive and well

[tunaman]

Maybe?


signed tunaman

[madmix]

So it would appear that Hitler was just born about
50 thousand years to early.

[tunaman]

Whats hitler got too do with? And remember that all conspiracy theories,
and urban myths allways has its pound of truth to it.
But if everyone wonts to think that the world is fine, well thats ok, dreams are for free. I take a shallow view at what our leeders tells us.
Nothings ever black and white, I just find more truth in the shades
of grey.



signed tunaman

[PinHead]

the world is fine tunaman...even if it is heading for another ice age or any other such natural occurrence, none of us can do anything about it. All these scientists can do is specualte..you do not need a degree in anything to make a specualtion. As for NASA looking for another planet...surely you do not believe dribble like that. Live your life for the short time you are here...you cannot change how the world turns..so just enjoy the ride.

[madmix]

Tunaman,

Hitler wanted to create a super race, of blue eyed
blonde haired genetically superior beings.

So I think relevant to your views on over population and
genetics.

I note you failed to reply to earlier post regarding soilving
the worlds over population crisis (your oppinion) in one
FOWL swoop.

cheers Mick

[tunaman]

Pinhead. I think theres a little more fact around than just specaultion and yes, you dont need a degree, but to say the world is fine, well I dont know about that. But I dont sit here and shit my self about, but I do find it all very interesting.
Why dont you tell me in one hundred or less words of how fine the planet really is. Tell me how good things are going to be in the years to come. I think you might find it hard for somewhere to start. And like I said befour, these down sides wont happen in our life time, and live every second I will, you can count on that. But who said it will be a natrual ending for the life on earth. All it takes is one idiot to press the button, and that could be sooner than you think.

Madmix. What Iam trying to say is, that the people of the world will and are breeding with all races, and in time we will be all one. And as for
making the worlds population smaller, slow down on breeding, let the death rate over ride the birth rate.



signed tunaman

[PinHead]

Tuna..it is still all specualtion..all they can do is guess what has happened in the past and guess what may happen in the future. As for 100 hundred words or less..simple..starting point..NOW..life is great...see, all over in 3 words

Won't it be great when we will all be one..we will then be rid of that most vile and disguating trait called racism.

[tunaman]

lol I really enjoyed your detailed discription of the Question ;D but yeah,
life is good, and wouldnt be dead for a millions dollars, but back to the
point, the worlds climate has changed in a big way, and allready water and food production in Australia has started to be affected, and in other
parts of the world. If population grows, and the climate gets hotter and dryer, it would be fair to say,that things are not going to be so bright for the years to come. Thats not a prodiction,as such, thats a fact.
The good times from the past, which feeds our minds with false hopes,
can only be discribed as small mindedness or nonvisionary.
Pinhead, its not hard to see that things are not balanced in the world today, and yes there is a lot of guesswork going on, but no one can see the future, but an educated guess will do me fine. Its better than thinking that everythings going to be allright, when we dam well know its not. We need to wined things back a bit, coz we cant keep growing like we are, and in the nexted hundred years or so, I think the writings
just started on the walls of change.



signed tunaman :)

[PinHead]

It is amazing ..all the doomsayers about global warming. All these scientists sprouting that man is causing whatever damage there may be. Who is to say that this is not a cyclical feature of the planet..Australia used to be mainly rainforest..now the driest continent..who is to say that the cycle is just continuing unabated and any effects man has are totally negligible.

The climate is only getting hotter and drier here (at the present time)..SE Asia has experienced increased monsoon activities over the past decades...the world keeps on turning and keeps on evolving...yet we seem to think we are resonsible for everything..perhaps not.

I will reirterate..scientists are only specualting..they may say that temps have risen about 0.5C over the past century...but they have no idea what has actuallu caused it..it is ALL speculation and nothing more.

Lately all the talk has been about global warming..what about the hole in the ozone layer..remember that..in the 80's it was the item that would destroy us..well..2005 was the worst year for the hole over Antarctica..and guess what..we are still here..amazing huh.

As for your statement of "fact"..people have survived i hotter and drier climates than ours..and food production on this planet can feed everyone..effortlessly...as long as the political nitwits allowed it to happen.

I do have to ask you one question..you say the world's climate has changed in a big way..from when..last year? last century? 1 million years ago...or more..what is the criteria you base this on to be so sure it is fact. Or is there a time i nthe cyclical changes of the planet when the climate was the same as it is now ? I don't know that answe and I do not think anyone would..hence all that everyone is saying now is mere theories..nothing proven and substantiated.

[seatime]

pinhead

you know why they harp on about a 0.5 degree temp rise in the last century, because that's how long they have been collating climate data.
Feed 100yrs of data into modelling software and the sky is falling in.

Otherwise they will rely on things like ice core samples for a prognosis.

The whole debate could be viewed as an extended weather forecast similar to what we read on the BOM site. And we know what often happens with the local weather forecasts #;)

[madmix]

Why should global warming result in food and water
shortages.
Given predictions of rising sea levels and rising temperatures,
it stands to reason that the evaporation from a larger expanse
of water will also increase, therefore leading to an increased
rate of precipitation.
So we have increased precipitation and increased temperature
levels, which should result in increased levels of food production
due to more favourable and widespread growing conditions.

Better growing conditions, equals a significant increase in the
growth rate and expanse of vegetation, therefore leading
to a substantial increase in photosynthesis.

Gee I should be a scientist.


cheers Mick

[seatime]

'They' say rising sea levels and warmer waters will kill all the cold water species.

On the flip side "thermal expansion" which is what it's actually called may be a benefit to ocean fisheries.
As a consequence of thermal expansion, it is speculated that colder currents will be able to move out of sub-arctic regions and deliver into temperate zones. This will have a major effect on food sources for fisheries in those areas.
Who knows anyway, it's all speculative, there aren't any 'facts' because it hasn't happened yet.
I'm content to accept what this rock has to offer, and deal with whatever it throws our way.

regards
Steve.

[tunaman]

Interesting. So the world is indistructable! Good, so we can carry on like we are and there,s nothing to worry about. Sorry I dont share the same views exactly. Lets put it this way. The world you enjoy and take for granted now, is going to change. True its not the end of our way of life,
but we will #have to put up with some changes, and true, there are the pro and cons were some countries will benifit but some will lose.
What do we do with the ones that need help and their the ones that are the primray food producers. then what! True, its all speculation, but the main point Iam trying to make is, population size is going to bring us down if something goes horribly wrong, and I dont think the worlds leeders are taking into account that this might be possiable.

Madmix. If what you say is true, everything will be washed away.
Pinhead. No I cant ansewer that Question.

gelic. Please explain!



Sorry, I had more to post but pressed post by accident.


signed tunaman :)

[poncho]

How many people who have contributed to this post have actually seen the movie? I have and defiantly recommend it. As with everything i hear or see about such issues it is best to be "taken it with a grain of salt", but none the less it is worth seeing/considering both sides of the argument before rubbishing or easily dismissing certain views. I believe the movie does address a lot of common misconceptions about global warming that have been expressed in some of the above posts. Am i convinced that global warming is taking place? Well it probably is but if it will have drastic consequences... I'm not sure... I'm not convinced it will.

That's my 2 cents

Cheers Chris

[tunaman]

Please define. Witch are the ones that have the misconceptions, and its not an argument, its a frendly debate. I find all of this very interesting,
and its good to see that people have so much care for the world today.
and if the world is so well, why is everyone so conserned?
And no I havent seen the movie myself, but I,ll make a point of seeing it as soon as posable.



signed tunaman :)

[madmix]

Hi Tunaman,

Everything washed away, that sounds familiar.
but I thought next time it was fire.

Then again, returneth to dust, could be drought


bloody hell, I 've caught tunaman disease and accidently
hit post too.

[poncho]

"Why should global warming result in food and water
shortages.
Given predictions of rising sea levels and rising temperatures,
it stands to reason that the evaporation from a larger expanse
of water will also increase, therefore leading to an increased
rate of precipitation.
So we have increased precipitation and increased temperature
levels, which should result in increased levels of food production
due to more favourable and widespread growing conditions.

Better growing conditions, equals a significant increase in the
growth rate and expanse of vegetation, therefore leading
to a substantial increase in photosynthesis. "

"It is amazing ..all the doomsayers about global warming. All these scientists sprouting that man is causing whatever damage there may be. Who is to say that this is not a cyclical feature of the planet..Australia used to be mainly rainforest..now the driest continent..who is to say that the cycle is just continuing unabated and any effects man has are totally negligible. #"

"the world is fine tunaman...even if it is heading for another ice age or any other such natural occurrence, none of us can do anything about it. All these scientists can do is specualte.."

There are just a few quotes from the above posts that i believe are misconceptions, Your right, argument was the wrong word to use i did mean debate. I too find it interesting and it is good to see so many people taking an interest. As I said before even after seeing the movie am not all convinced about dooms day predictions on same token i think it is naive to think the human race doesn't have any impact on the earth or its climate. There was a quote from the movie a few pages back something like it is "hard for a man to understand something when his lively hood depends on him not understanding." I think this raises a good point. I believe not only if ones 'lively hood depends on them not understand' but also ones way of life depends on them not understanding. How many of those who have posted find it hard to understand because if what they say is true about global warming the implications would conflict with their lifestyle. Would you be willing to give up your way of life (cars, boats, etc) if you were given 100% undeniable evidence that you cause global warming. I'm definitely no greeny and i enjoy fishing/boating and driving a car. I'm not even sure i would give those things up if given 100% undeniable evidence.

Cheers Chris # #

[tunaman]

Bullshit. Are you people living under a rock! Doomsday! Have any of you
really read what I have said?
Tunaman disease, you have a disease allright, and its nothing to do with me ;D
Is just a well talked about topic witch no ones has the true ansewer for!
So dont get all wounded blokes on me.


And in the end, who gives a shit, I think thats what everyone thinks.



signed tunaman :)

[madmix]

Hi bayfisher,

Re my apparent misconception!!!!
If we are producing green house gasses that are supposedly
causing global warming, then please explain what happens
in a green house??
To my knowledge increased humidity, increased temperature
and increased growth rates.

Tunaman, debates friendly or not are always a healthy exercise
for the mind.

ps: I was going to send you five dollars but had allready
sealed the envelope!!!! sound familiar

cheers Mick

[Jim_Tait]

Tunaman,

full power to your arm for continuing to discuss the topic in the face of ignoramuses who choose not to confront the reality that is now as well and truly apparent as the nose on their face. As Al Gore has referred to it (climate change) it is an inconvenient truth - because it confronts our current socio - economic paradigm with it's unsustainability. Its not rocket science any cow cocky knows there are only so many head you can put in the bottom paddock before your outstrip its productive capacity and lead to natural resource degradation - its called carrying capacity - most five year olds understand it well enough but modern society - particularly adherents to the growth based economy prefer to believe in the cultural delusion of 'evermoreism' - that is human welfare is dependent on ever-increasing consumption of resources and energy something we know to be a lie (& unsustainable).

Who gives a shit? I do, I have two young kids and the impacts of climate change will definitely be increasingly felt in their lifetimes - we are already seeing the beginning of it.

The 0.7 degrees increase in global temperature rise in the last 100 years is only the beginning - it is accelerating, 0.5 of the increase has occurred post 1950's, and their is an increasing consensus between climatologists and ecologists that 2-3 degrees rise is as much as we could possibly risk before we get run away carbon dynamics and positive feedback mechanisms operating that will take our climate to a place where the survivability of human society is less than assured. People need to realise that the world's atmosphere is a big thing (but not that big that it can absorb impacts forever - the entire biosphere - the bit that contains life - is as thick as condensation on a marble) and that changes to it requires big inputs and set up a lot of inertia - its a big ship to turn around!!

I am a scientist (ecologist) who has had cause to review the scientific literature on climate change as part of my work and it has been personally disturbing for me to see where the science has got to in terms of reaching consensus on the severity of the unfolding impacts and its linkage to human activity - versus the six o'clock news where the world's superpowers are still more interested in securing oil reserves in the middle east - when climate wise we can't even afford to burn the oil we have!!

We can avert global catastrophe associated with climate change and the other ecological crisis we face but it will require nothing short of cultural reform. As a society we need to accept that ecosystems singularly or in their entirety as the global life support system have thresholds as to how much they can be trashed/exploited before ecological values and ecosystem services are lost - we need to get our culture and economy operating within those constraints instead of the blind adherence to the economic mythology of sustained growth forever - its not rocket science, quite simple really - as David Suzuki once said 'growth for the sake of growth is the philosophy of cancer!"

If you look (via aerial photos or satellite imagery) at the patterns that human development make on the natural energetic signatures of ecosystems (diverse mosaics comprised of ’arterial’ river networks, forests and kidney ‘wetlands’ that evoke Gaian sympathies) it is apparent that the growth – cancer analogy goes beyond the metaphoric. The massive undifferentiated cellular pattern of human settlement or agriculture represents a blight on the more complex landscape tissues of nature which draws energetically from the surrounding living system (nutrients and materials) and excretes by-products downstream (wastes, toxins, sediment & nutrient loads) that cause system dysfunction – the cancer analogy is actually quite accurate – and we have the ability to fix this by modelling our society and development more on nature where someone’s shit is someone else’s nutrient and connected cyclical systems deliver homeostasis (dynamic equilibrium) as opposed to growth.

Unfortunately the powers that be (the privileged classes and top order capitalists) benefit from the status quo (it keeps the wheels of industry turning – just look at how the military industry complex has benefited from the current wars in the middle east) and given the media monopolisation in this country (and globally) we don't get to hear too many alternative views on the matter or have too many debates about how the economy should operate or who it should serve.

We all have come to equate quality of life with our individual level of material and energy consumption - when in fact there are heaps of cultural pursuits that we could pursue to give ourselves a high quality of life without costing the earth – things like (1) nature base recreation (that’s where fishing comes in), (2) spirituality (wherever you find it –besides the almighty $ sign) and (3) the arts (no not Van Goughs on the wall – but creative endeavours that bind community and give them a positive sense of identity & Hope!!).

Viva the revolution - Jim

[poncho]

hi madmix

quote:

"Why should global warming result in food and water
shortages.
Given predictions of rising sea levels and rising temperatures,
it stands to reason that the evaporation from a larger expanse
of water will also increase, therefore leading to an increased
rate of precipitation.
So we have increased precipitation and increased temperature
levels, which should result in increased levels of food production
due to more favorable and widespread growing conditions."

Your absolutely right "with rising sea levels and rising temperatures it stands to reason that the evaporation from a larger expanse of water will also increase, therefore leading to an increased rate of precipitation.So we have increased precipitation and increased temperature levels, (this is the bit i dispute)---> which should result in increased levels of food production due to more favorable and widespread growing conditions."

I don't think you can unequivocally say higher temps and rain are more favorable growing conditions. How many wheat farmers are there is Darwin? Temperate crops such as wheat simply can't survive in a tropical climate. Not all crops are suited to higher temps and higher precipitation. Furthermore though higher temps do mean higher precipitation it usually also means a higher concentration of precipitation in short periods (the wet season in the tropics) which means more floods and more violent whether. Again I'm no expert and in the movie they go into more depth explaining this. I wasn't trying to have a go at people, the original point i was trying to make was go see the movie with an open mind (instead of rubbishing it without seeing it) it addresses a lot of things people have bought up in the post.

Cheers Chris

[PinHead]

Tunaman,

full power to your arm for continuing to discuss the topic in the face of ignoramuses who choose not to confront the reality you may think it is apparent...but not all follow along blindly that is now as well and truly apparent as the nose on their face. As Al Gore has referred to it (climate change) it is an inconvenient truth - because it confronts our current socio - economic paradigm with it's unsustainability. #Its not rocket science any cow cocky knows there are only so many head you can put in the bottom paddock before your outstrip its productive capacity and lead to natural resource degradation - its called carrying capacity - most five year olds understand it well enough but modern society - particularly adherents to the growth based economy prefer to believe in the cultural delusion of 'evermoreism' - that is human welfare is dependent on ever-increasing consumption of resources and energy something we know to be a lie (& unsustainable).

Who gives a shit? I do, I have two young kids and the impacts of climate change will definitely be increasingly felt in their lifetimes - we are already seeing the beginning of it.

The 0.7 degrees increase in global temperature rise in the last 100 years is only the beginning - it is accelerating, 0.5 of the increase has occurred post 1950's, and their is an increasing consensus between climatologists and ecologists that 2-3 degrees rise is as much as we could possibly risk before we get run away carbon dynamics and positive feedback mechanisms operating that will take our climate to a place where the survivability of human society is less than assured. #People need to realise that the world's atmosphere is a big thing (but not that big that it can absorb impacts forever - the entire biosphere - the bit that contains life - is as thick as condensation on a marble) and that changes to it requires big inputs and set up a lot of inertia - its a big ship to turn around!!

I am a scientist (ecologist) who has had cause to review the scientific literature on climate change as part of my work and it has been personally disturbing for me to see where the science has got to in terms of reaching consensus on the severity of the unfolding impacts and its linkage to human activity - versus the six o'clock news where the world's superpowers are still more interested in securing oil reserves in the middle east - when climate wise we can't even afford to burn the oil we have!!

We can avert global catastrophe associated with climate change and the other ecological crisis we face but it will require nothing short of cultural reform. #As a society we need to accept that ecosystems singularly or in their entirety as the global life support system have thresholds as to how much they can be trashed/exploited before ecological values and ecosystem services are lost - we need to get our culture and economy operating within those constraints instead of the blind adherence to the economic mythology of sustained growth forever - its not rocket science, quite simple really - as David Suzuki once said 'growth for the sake of growth is the philosophy of cancer!"

If you look (via aerial photos or satellite imagery) at the patterns that human development make on the natural energetic signatures of ecosystems (diverse mosaics comprised of ’arterial’ river networks, forests and kidney ‘wetlands’ that evoke Gaian sympathies) it is apparent that the growth – cancer analogy goes beyond the metaphoric. The massive undifferentiated cellular pattern of human settlement or agriculture represents a blight on the more complex landscape tissues of nature which draws energetically from the surrounding living system (nutrients and materials) and excretes by-products downstream (wastes, toxins, sediment & nutrient loads) that cause system dysfunction – the cancer analogy is actually quite accurate – and we have the ability to fix this by modelling our society and development more on nature where someone’s shit is someone else’s nutrient and connected cyclical systems deliver homeostasis (dynamic equilibrium) as opposed to growth.

Unfortunately the powers that be (the privileged classes and top order capitalists) benefit from the status quo (it keeps the wheels of industry turning – just look at how the military industry complex has benefited from the current wars in the middle east) and how many so called scientists have profited from all the doom and gloom they have predicted and given the media monopolisation in this country (and globally) we don't get to hear too many alternative views on the matter or have too many debates about how the economy should operate or who it should serve. #

We all have come to equate quality of life with our individual level of material and energy consumption - when in fact there are heaps of cultural pursuits that we could pursue to give ourselves a high quality of life without costing the earth – things like (1) nature base recreation (that’s where fishing comes in), LOL..nature based..petrol, plastics, carbob fibre, fibreglass, nylon line etc etc..all purely nature based.(2) spirituality is that as in religion? not going on that one...too many deaths caused in the name of religion for my likings thanks(wherever you find it –besides the almighty $ sign) and (3) the arts (no not Van Goughs on the wall – but creative endeavours that bind community and give them a positive sense of identity & Hope!!).

Viva the revolution - Jim


Jim..please show me one definitve piece of research that can tell me exactly what will the climate be like in 50 years..not some supposition..something absolute..I bet you can't..and no one can cos no one knows. I wonder if the neanderthals were freaking over global freezing before the ice age?? did them a lot of good huh ???

I am sick and tired of all this doom and gloom..it all seems to come down to one thing..scientists looking for bucks to suit their model of the future..more to save some trees...more to create this type of housing..more for this type of food production etc etc etc....if we are so guilty of the burning of fossil fuels...how much carbon etc is released when a volcano erupts...comparable to how many cars running for a certain length of time..any answers?

0.5C in 50 years..and 0.7 in the past 100...but what was the temperature variance in the 100 years prior? We do not know...so once again it is all guesswork.

[Jim_Tait]

Onya Chris for informing re: rainfall patterns and crop production,

there is also another little known or talked about component to 'greenhouse' impacts to the atmosphere and that concerns the carbon dioxide concentrations alone - experimental trials growing both native and crop plants under the sorts of CO2 concerntrations we're expecting to see in ~50 yrs show that many plants will produce increasingly 'sclerophyllous' (fiborous) vegetation and lower nutritive status produce including fruit. Looking at the impact on Australian arboral mammals that feed on Eucalypt leaves (possums, koalas) the concern (backed up by the experimental trials) is that under growing conditions of extra high CO2 concentrations the leafy matter produced will take more energy to digest that the nutritive value that is returned. Thus sertting up a spiralling energy used / consumed deficit.

Another reason to appreciate that humans should not be able to generate run away carbon dynamics in the atmosphere in the pursuit of a growth economy and figure 'she'll be apples' - the apples might end up being prettyy tough (& crap) tucker!!

[Jim_Tait]

Pinhead, ;D :'(

congratulations mate your one of the few that can make me laugh and cry at the same time - get real mate - for your grandchildrens sake if nothing else - I hope you're up to looking them in the eye in a decade or twos time and re-interating your theory about how all this climate change is a nasty old scientist get rich scheme :-/

[PinHead]

Pinhead, ;D :'(

congratulations mate your one of the few that can make me laugh and cry at the same time - get real mate - for your grandchildrens sake if nothing else - I hope you're up to looking them in the eye in a decade or twos time and re-interating your theory about how all this climate change is a nasty old scientist get rich scheme :-/

Maybe you should get real Jim...I will gladly reiterate it..I did not say temps will not change but I do say that man has very little impact on natural cyclical changes of the planet. I will also reiterate that scientists twist things to suit their puppeteer...here is one example..http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=901

On a slightly different tact..how is the hole in the ozone layer going? any better now we are not using cfc's?

[Jim_Tait]

[quote author=Jim_Tait link=1159014323/45#59 date=1160969083]Tunaman,

– things like (1) nature based recreation (that’s where fishing comes in), LOL..nature based..petrol, plastics, carbob fibre, fibreglass, nylon line etc etc..all purely nature based.(2) spirituality is that as in religion? #not going on that one...too many deaths caused in the name of religion for my likings thanks(wherever you find it –besides the almighty $ sign) and (3) the arts (no not Van Goughs on the wall – but creative endeavours that bind community and give them a positive sense of identity & Hope!!).

Viva the revolution - Jim


Pinhead - I said fishing was an example of nature based recreation - and it is,- how you choose to pursue it is up to your own budget and morality - I certainly have caught my fair share of feeds by sustainable fishing gear including my hands at times!!

I didn't say religion - I said spirituality - the two are quite different one is a feeling most humans have the capacity to experience (it seems) about their origins and sense of place in the cosmos - the other is about institutions trying to garner power over the masses - I agree that there has been too much killing for religous purposes for me to be comfortable with it as well - but spirtuality is something I belive is intrinsict to us all - it can be as simple as watching the sun set over the water after you've just landed a barra you hunted arond the edge of some floodplain lagoon and getting the feeling that this nature stuff is part of you and that you are part of it - works for me!!

[Jim_Tait]

Pinhead, ;D :'(



Maybe you should get real Jim...I will gladly reiterate it..I did not say temps will not change but I do say that man has very little impact on natural cyclical changes of the planet. I will also reiterate that scientists twist things to suit their puppeteer...here is one example..http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=901

On a slightly different tact..how is the hole in the ozone layer going? any better now we are not using cfc's?


If the increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is cyclical - then how come the increasing concentration we are experiencing now initiated during the industrial revolution and has increased in concert with global patterns of fossil fuel use??

How is the ozone hole going - crap - its bigger than ever this year - for a couple of reasons - globally we haven't stopped using CFC's (although there has been a major reduction due to the implemnentation of the Montreal agreement), those that ae in the atmosphere stay there a long time and also because there is an interaction between climate change and the behaviour of the upper stratosphere which has resulted in an exceptionally cold (stratospherically) antartic winter that has dispersed the ozone layer more than usual - the other way its going crap is in the biological cost of increased ultra violet penetration reaching earth and causing melanomas and other physiological impacts on wildlife and humans - does that answer it for you?

[Jim_Tait]

Pinhead,

the following information is in the 'about us' section of the cooler heads coalition a sub group of the 'National Cosumer Coalition'.

Personally I prefer to get my science from scientist organisations not those espousing the merits of unbridled 'economic rationalism' the very force I asset has got us into the shit we're in. Also note that the scientist feeling upset about unsubstantiated claims about increased cyclonoic activity being associated with the greenhouse effect - does not dispute anthropogenetic (human caused) global warming.

INFORMATION ON THE COOLER HEADS COALITION (and what they believe - buy it if you desire - that's what consumerism is about isn't it??)

This web site is a project of the Cooler Heads Coalition, a sub-group of the National Consumer Coalition.

The Cooler Heads Coalition formed May 6, 1997 to dispel the myths of global warming by exposing flawed economic, scientific, and risk analysis. Coalition members will also follow the progress of the international Global Climate Change Treaty negotiations.

This website is paid for and maintained by Consumer Alert.

More information about the Cooler Heads Coalition.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About the National Consumer Coalition

The National Consumer Coalition was formed by Consumer Alert in late 1996 as an on-going coalition of market-oriented national and state-level policy and activist groups, which focus on consumer issues in the policy arena. Jointly representing over 2,000,000 individuals, the NCC currently includes 24 member groups. The NCC is coordinated by Fran Smith, Consumer Alert's executive director, and the NCC's issue work is done by its sub-groups of which three have already formed. Each sub-group focuses on a specific issue, such as internet privacy, global climate change, and health care, and includes experts from the member organizations who study that issue.

Since many NCC members are non-profit, non-partisan 501(c)(3) organizations, NCC does not engage in lobbying. NCC promotes broad educational activities, and members have submitted comments to federal agencies and testified on behalf of consumers. The NCC's agenda is determined by the member groups.

The Proclamation of the National Consumer Coalition

The members of the National Consumer Coalition (NCC) do hereby endorse the following principles for a society of free and responsible consumers:


A market economy benefits consumers by expanding consumer choice and competition and fostering innovation, which lowers costs and improves consumer health and safety.


Individual consumers have different values and varying needs in the marketplace and shop for goods and services based on those, such as quality level, price, service, and convenience.


Informed consumers are better off making their own decisions in the marketplace and holding responsibility for those decisions.


Consumers exert clout in the marketplace by their decisions to buy or not to buy and to choose where to spend their money.


Government policies that restrict consumer choice and stifle competition harm consumers by substituting policymakers’ values for individual values and raising the costs of goods and services to consumers.

[PinHead]

Jim...a CFC as such is harmless to the ozone layer..it is when the chlorine atom breaks off that the so called damage is done...still wondering how it gets up there seeing as it is heavier than air.

But wait..scientists told us that CFC's like R12 were damaging the ozone layer..okay...they now say we have this wonderful new product called R134A..all this from scientists remember..no damage to the ozone..yippee..all is good.

But wait..there is more...it won't damage the ozone layer yet it will be a problem in the so called greenhouse gases system..and..given certain exposure ..it will cause testicular cancer...wonderful??? All given to us by scientists...all a bunch of wankers in that respect.

Aid in one so called problem and do damage in another so called problem...wow, that sure is conclusive science. Once again...they did not know...as no scientists in these fields know.

If it is obvious as the nose on your face, Jim, then you are in the wrong filed..you should be over in the States convincing their EPA that it is all cut and dried because they admit ithere is one hell of a lot of uncertainties...http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climateuncertainties.html

No one is denying that things are changing..BUT..who can prove conclusively that it is mad made or just a natural cycle...records have not been kept for long enough to prove anything...the planet has been going for millions of years..man's records..a hundred or maybe 2...not much to make assumptions of what the planet is really doing is it.

Anyway..has been a good debate and neither side will ever be convinced to the other's point of view.

Bring on more heat...keeps me busy...LOL

[Jackinthebox]

I should have also started a poll with this thread to see how many of you have actually gone & seen the movie?

So has anyone else seen the film yet besides a few of us?

I don't see why people want to fight this so hard. As one reviewer put it, “why roll the dice on the only planet we've got.” Even if NASA found another planet for us to live on, we’d probably stuff that up in record time too!

I'm not advocating a “back to third world country” existence. We have created all the amazing innovations, technology, etc in the world through the genius of the human mind and if the desire is there, we can use this same genius to solve many of the biggest problems facing us without abandoning our way of life. Problem is, too many people are making big $$$$$ by keeping things going the way they are.

HYBRID CARS: Here’s a really basic example, the Toyota Hybrid Petrol/electric car costs about $37,000 for a new one and gets close to 1000 kilometres on a single tank of fuel. The average new Falcon or Commodore for a similar price will use more than twice the fuel. Not surprisingly, the waiting list for a Toyota Prius is very long now.

FULL ELECTRIC CARS: Critics said that the purely electric cars built by GM (USA) in the 90’s were canned because you could only drive 100 miles (160 km)at a time before a recharge and people "did not want to have to adjust their lifestyle to fit the car"

Now ask yourself this, how many days of the year do you actually need to drive more than 160 kilometres in one go? I asked myself, and the last time I could think of was 12 months ago when we went to Stanage Bay. The time before that, Dunno? Average distance travelled per day by the average person is about 25 – 50 kilometres - not much lifestyle adjusting to do there is there?

So what about the old “ electric cars are gutless” argument, well did anyone see the show on tv recently with the guys in the US that convert their cars over to electric at home. One of them races his old Datsun electric ute at the drags and does a 12 second quarter mile, not bad for a gutless electric hey?

Getting off the electric car for a sec, how about Hydrogen. Many people don’t know that the Hydrogen fuel cell was invented over a hundred years ago! Would have been good if they put these into the first cars…. very simple, hardly any parts to break down, no toxic exhaust(only water), etc, etc. No someone had a better idea, “lets use this oil stuff” and put a nice heavy, complicated metal engine in these cars with tons of things that can break down and requiring lots of maintenance. Fast forward to the current day and we’ve got a world that’s addicted to oil and running out, cities choked with toxic gases and a worldwide threat of terrorism caused by one thing …OIL!
On the other hand, Hydrogen is simple to make, is the most abundant element on earth and doesn’t require pissing off half of the world to secure supplies of it.

Who said that green business had to be bad business, there are tons of examples of companies out there that have thought outside the "I’M NOT GONNA CHANGE" square and managed to easily implement measures that have reduced pollution or electricity or water etc by massive amounts. This has saved these companies lots and lots of money, as well as being good for the environment and the people that live near them.

[PinHead]

Jack..hydrogen is a marvellous idea..but it will not help in the reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases..the most cost effective way of producing hydrogen..electrolysis in water..pass an electric current through the water...and a damn lot of electricity at that..and what do we do to get the electricity..burn fossil fuels.

[poncho]

Burning fossil fuels isn't the only way to make electricity.

[PinHead]

Burning fossil fuels isn't the only way to make electricity.



I agree..go the Nukes

[Jim_Tait]

But wait..scientists told us that CFC's like R12 were damaging the ozone layer..okay...they now say we have this wonderful new product called R134A..all this from scientists remember..no damage to the ozone..yippee..all is good.

But wait..there is more...it won't damage the ozone layer yet it will be a problem in the so called greenhouse gases system..and..given certain exposure ..it will cause testicular cancer...wonderful??? All given to us by scientists...all a bunch of wankers in that respect.



Pinhead,
you can bet that R134A was bought to us not by scientist but capitalist wankers - who believe in the right of consumer access to what ever (including toxic shit if the profit margins are good enough). #The scientist would have been in the employ of these wankers and would have been working to a narrow brief set by legal wankers who would have hamstrung their ability to communicate anything other than what they were contracted to do - find an 'ozone friendly' alternative to CFC's for use in refrigerants - which they did.

By the way their are alternatives to R134A which are hydrocarbon (propane) based 'green kool' #or something like that - although still greenhouse gasses they deliver about 1/1000 the damage of R12 in the atmosphere.

[mowerman]

I agree with pinhead.

Nuke it.

Global Warming..Too many "learned" people making too much money out of something that should be stuffed back in the box and the lid screwed shut.


If it happens it happens..and we can do jack shit about it.

[tunaman]

Nuke it! Yeah that will fix it ::) But its true mowerman the damage has
been done, and I think we,ll just have to hang on to our sits and go for
the ride. From what I understand, it cant be fixed,

and the clock is ticking.




signed tunaman :)

[madmix]

Jim, which came first????

the capitalist ###### or the scientist. I don't see a capitalist
walking into a bank and deciding I think today I will create
a refrigerant gas.

Bay fisher, Having lived in the tropics most my life, I can
tell you that not all tropical rainfall is associated with cyclones
or thunderstorms causing flooding and inundation. And as far
as food production is concerned, Rice the most staple of diets
is a tropical crop, where do we grow it, the temperate zones
of NSW, highly efficient, No way. With all our agricultural
technology, we stil cant equal the tonnage rates of most Asian
countries.
Is it just chance that an Australian meeting on Irrigation and
drainage is being held in Darwin, to look at ways to better utilise
our Northern water supplies for increased food production.

Our Agricultural endeavours have been moving further to
the north of Australia for the last 30yrs, and this is not just
due to the proximity to the massive asian markets.

cheers Mick

[PinHead]

But wait..scientists told us that CFC's like R12 were damaging the ozone layer..okay...they now say we have this wonderful new product called R134A..all this from scientists remember..no damage to the ozone..yippee..all is good.

But wait..there is more...it won't damage the ozone layer yet it will be a problem in the so called greenhouse gases system..and..given certain exposure ..it will cause testicular cancer...wonderful??? All given to us by scientists...all a bunch of wankers in that respect.



"I am sick and tired of all this doom and gloom..it all seems to come down to one thing..scientists looking for bucks to suit their model of the future..'


Pinhead,
you can bet that R134A was bought to us not by scientist but capitalist wankers - who believe in the right of consumer access to what ever (including toxic shit if the profit margins are good enough). #The scientist would have been in the employ of these wankers and would have been working to a narrow brief set by legal wankers who would have hamstrung their ability to communicate anything other than what they were contracted to do - find an 'ozone friendly' alternative to CFC's for use in refrigerants - which they did.

By the way their are alternatives to R134A which are hydrocarbon (propane) based 'green kool' #or something like that - although still greenhouse gasses they deliver about 1/1000 the damage of R12 in the atmosphere.


Thank you Jim..as a scientist, you have proven my point for me...that scientists dance for the puppeteers that are holding the purse strings. Scientists rely on someone to pay for their research and I am sure they always seem to arrive at the conclusion that the puppeteer wants...and the pupeteer is usually a capitalist as they are the ones with the money.

[Jim_Tait]

I agree with pinhead.

Nuke it.

Global Warming..Too many "learned" people making too much money out of something that should be stuffed back in the box and the lid screwed shut.


If it happens it happens..and we can do jack shit about it.

So you believe that there are more learned people making more money out of trying to fix the problem than there are those who choose to be unlearned making maoney out of the status quo??

I supose you belive in fairies at the bottom of the garden as well - well yes you do (or near enough!) you believe in Jonnie How-war-had's answer - nuclear energy - that should make for some more interesting national security policy - perhaps we''ll even put Australian kids behind razor wire as well this time around while we're making sure that the products of nuclear energy don't fall into the hands of 'terrorists'.

Stuffing it back in the box and screwing the lid shut?? what are you talking about stuffing in a box?? your conscience? awareness? knowledge? - bit like stuffing you head in the sand really..or yeah and we can do jack shit about it - sounds really dis-empowered give up now you reakon - may as well, sounds as though you already have - I'm sorry for you mate and the rest of us who have to cope with the masses that follow your enlightened approach to coping with challenges :(

[poncho]

Madmix, Your right not all rain in the tropics is associated with cyclones
or thunderstorms causing flooding and inundation. But the there is a lot more of such weather in the tropics then in temperate climates. Rice is a tropical crop but wheat is probably globally the most important food grain and does not grow so well in the tropics. Surely you cant unequivocally say hotter weather and more rain means better growing conditions for all crops.

[madmix]

Hi Bayfisher,

Never said that it was better conditions for all crops, however
those that don't favour such conditions, can always be genetically
modified or selectively bred, just as we have been doing for
two hundred years with temperate crops.

If growth rates under green house/tropical conditions, does not
significantly surpass that of temperate zones, then why are
the worlds tropical rainforests so important to the worlds future.

cheers Mick

[rough_shag]

Hey Tunaman,maybe you should spend some of the last precious moments the planet has left learning to SPELL mate!! ;D-sorry it's driving me nuts trying to figure out some of the posts you've put up.
One explanation for all the scaremongering we see and hear almost daily via media is the fact that nobody wants to hear about how well things are and how wonderful the planet is because thats not sensational and doesn't attract interest or sell very well,but instilling fear by showing terrible destruction etc gets the heart rate up and definitely gets attention especially when it involves our ultimate fear-total extinction of the human race.If you don't believe that then have a look at what the most popular subject matter is in movies/television/fiction books-overwhelmingly murder..death..torture..destruction..war..killing and other miscellaneous threats to human life.Basically we love being scared to death! and the environment debate is no different-disaster sells.
Jace.

[rough_shag]

Not all scientists work for capitalist masters-some work for political masters like CSIRO etc.There is good and bad in all things and rubbishing scientists is ridiculous as we all benefit daily from their inventions and discoveries/insights.
Without scientific advancement we would be still back in the dark ages living miserable lives to the ripe old age of 30yrs if lucky!.Having mapped the human genome it's now only a matter of time before science can begin to erradicate many of our diseases and even begin to improve the human condition and lifespan.This isn't science fiction it's fact, just as the replacement of organs and joints was thought of as fiction as early as 60yrs ago.Terraforming other planets will be viable it's just a matter of time and scientific will,then we certainly will be able to colonise other planets, but of course we need the will to do it in the first place though.
Imagine trying to explain to captain Cook how we sit in an aircraft at 35000ft travelling at 600kmh in luxury sipping a cool beer and eating peanuts on our way around the globe to wherever we choose! and yet we have only had controlled flight for what? less than 100yrs.The point is that nothing is perfect but in the end science has given us many great advances to our great benefit but as with anything there are also shortfalls and these shouldn't be allowed to override our thinking.Jace.

[tunaman]

Hey! I can reed dit Quit well. Wot scool did you go two. ;D




sinned tunemam ;)

[PinHead]

Not all scientists work for capitalist masters-some work for political masters like CSIRO etc.There is good and bad in all things and rubbishing scientists is ridiculous as we all benefit daily from their inventions and discoveries/insights.
Without scientific advancement we would be still back in the dark ages living miserable lives to the ripe old age of 30yrs if lucky!.Having mapped the human genome it's now only a matter of time before science can begin to erradicate many of our diseases and even begin to improve the human condition and lifespan.This isn't science fiction it's fact, just as the replacement of organs and joints was thought of as fiction as early as 60yrs ago.Terraforming other planets will be viable it's just a matter of time and scientific will,then we certainly will be able to colonise other planets, but of course we need the will to do it in the first place though.
Imagine trying to explain to captain Cook how we sit in an aircraft at 35000ft travelling at 600kmh in luxury sipping a cool beer and eating peanuts on our way around the globe to wherever we choose! and yet we have only had controlled flight for what? less than 100yrs.The point is that nothing is perfect but in the end science has given us many great advances to our great benefit but as with anything there are also shortfalls and these shouldn't be allowed to override our thinking.Jace. #

good analogy about ol' Jimmy Cook there Jace..but don't forget to balance things out for the old fella...like telling him that the cannons he has on board would be replaced by a weapon that can kill over 100,000 people in one go...I bet that one would impress him. I would love for all the research scientists that have made statements on global warming to list where their research grants came from..I bet you could make a movie on that alone.

[rough_shag]

That's better Tuna now you are making far more sense than before mate!.Pinhead I think a lot of people just drone along in day to day life and don't really think about the BIG picture much,but if you do think about where we are now compared to say even 100yrs ago,which ain't that long ago,it is absolutely mind boggling.That being said now imagine where we'll be in say 400yrs time bearing in mind that technology increases exponentially and it is incredible to imagine the things science would have given us.
It always makes me laugh when I see or hear of people who rubbish scientific development and focus on the negative aspects or failures -most religious folk seem to dwell on these negative aspects and ignore the good things I've noticed-but when it hits the fan or someone gets seriously ill etc the first people they turn to are the scientists and the machines built by scientists through research and investigation.
Personally I wish I could be around to see what marvels science will provide us with in future and who knows maybe they'll even be able to slow aging or even eliminate it altogether-CRIKEY!! then we could fish for ever! lol.Jace.

[PinHead]

That's better Tuna now you are making far more sense than before mate!.Pinhead I think a lot of people just drone along in day to day life and don't really think about the BIG picture much,but if you do think about where we are now compared to say even 100yrs ago,which ain't that long ago,it is absolutely mind boggling.That being said now imagine where we'll be in say 400yrs time bearing in mind that technology increases exponentially and it is incredible to imagine the things science would have given us.
It always makes me laugh when I see or hear of people who rubbish scientific development and focus on the negative aspects or failures -most religious folk seem to dwell on these negative aspects and ignore the good things I've noticed-but when it hits the fan or someone gets seriously ill etc the first people they turn to are the scientists and the machines built by scientists through research and investigation.
Personally I wish I could be around to see what marvels science will provide us with in future and who knows maybe they'll even be able to slow aging or even eliminate it altogether-CRIKEY!! then we could fish for ever! lol.Jace. #

yep..some of us just drone along and accept everything and never question anything..like bloody hell we do.
yes..there have been some great advances in the past 100 years..and there has been some abominable ones also (how about thalidomide as one good example)...no need to talk to me about people being seriously ill etc..I could give you a long winded lecture on that subject...as for religion..not into that..BUT..I will not accept blindly what some organisation..scientific or otherwise..start preaching without questioning same..if you do then you are the one following along blindly. As for the environmental studies...there are various schools of thought ..some for and some against global warming etc so who do you believe???

[mowerman]

AHH....Mr Tait.

Where in hell did you get "kids behind razor wire" and "enlightened approach to coping with challenges" out of my previous post.

Are you a journalist? Take 2 words and make a 10 page essay out of them.

Mate ,if you believe "some" scientists and the screaming media, then the climate will change to such an extant that we will all be slow roasted within the next 6 months. And there is nothing we can do about it. Might as well stick my head and arse and the other bits in the sand and be done with it.

On the other hand. There are scientists who believe that the earths temperature is actually cooler now than it was 500 or a 1000 years ago.

To base your conclusions of a nowhere near exact science on the last 100 to 150 years figures ,and scream its the absolute truth, when the "experiment" has been running since the last major ice age shows a total disregard for the proper scientific process.
Only politicians could make something out of such a small sample.

It all comes down to what you want to believe and where you get your information from. If all you see is the box in the lounge room with the pretty pictures on it or THE WORLD ACCORDING TO RUPERT then,,,enjoy the slow roast.

Scientists (ones I believe) have recently discovered a volcano in Indonesia that exploded about 75000 years ago. To put some perspective on it.
When Mt St.Helens in the US erupted in the 90s, it ejected approx 1 cubic kilometer of magma in the form of sulphur ash.
Looking at ice core samples from Greenland and mollusc shells from sedimentary sea beds in the south Atlantic, They have estimated the discharge from the Indonesian volcano at 1300 cubic kilometers. About 800 billion tons of ash. How many CO2s and CFCs and BCFs and AC/DCs will we need to reach that figure.
And when the sulphur ash combined with water it formed sulphuric acid which proceeded to rain on the entire planet for the next1000 to 2000 years. But nature fixed itself and life survived. Even the grotty little humans.

But then all of that is a load of crap if you believe "some "scientists who say the earth was created 5246 years ago.

[bidkev]

Evolution, evolution, evolution. The environment is constantly changing and always has been. Whether it be man made pollutants or natural pollutants such as volcanic eruptions life will evolve to tolerate changing conditions.

Just as strains of viruses (or virii if you prefer ;D ) have evolved an immunity to antibiotics, there is also a school of thought amongst some scientists that our lungs are gradually adapting to pollutants. We are now 4'' taller than we were 500 yrs ago..why?

Ask yourself why did fish evolve into lizards all those years ago? Was there environmental factors (pollutants) that drove them from the sea, and if not, then why the hell should they leave?

Certain species of fish have evolved to adapt to sudden high temperature and salinity changes such as mullet and other estuarine fish. Nature heals and finds ways of opposing changes in environment although the current change may well be at too fast a rate for nature to cope. Global warming? The world has seen it all before.... long before man as he is today....and global freezing.

kev

[rough_shag]

Well pinhead I don't know maybe it's just us fishos that are the deep thinkers mate-probably all that time spent bobbing up and down in the water not catching fish,but I meet plenty of people who don't look beyond their own nose and have two x's where their eyes used to be if you talk about anything beyond the w/ends piss up or the footy/cricket/car race and don't get me wrong I also found those things interesting for about the first 30 yrs of my life too but struth it's like a merry go round year in year out so eventually you start to 'wonder' about all sorts of other non sports oriented things eh.
I won't get you started about medical stuff ups and hey thalidamide wasn't good for morning sick mothers to be but nowadays it is being used to successfully treat other nasty diseases and proving invaluable too.Nothing is perfect and that includes doctors and scientists and we all learn by mistakes-it's the nature of the beast,but what is the alternative?do nothing for fear of failure?.I could list plenty of scientific inventions that you and I use daily and take for granted but then my posts would be even longer than they are!!.The point is that science is advancing the human race like never before in our history thats all.
What mowerman says is spot on and it has been said before many times but again most people seem to be conditioned to want to believe the worst and feed their fears these days so I suppose when anyone comes along with some doomsday movie/documentary like the global warming one they will always find a willing audience eager to jump on the scaremongering bandwagon and do little or no actual research for themselves.
Evolution? big subject that one,there are way too many gaps in the classic theory of evolution-far too many to discuss here-but adaptation is often mistakenly confused with evolution.Cheers!Jace.

[seatime]

# # ## # Evolution? big subject that one,there are way too many gaps in the classic theory of evolution-far too many to discuss here-but adaptation is often mistakenly confused with evolution.Cheers!Jace.

shagger

phil osofy and evolution, my second favourite subjects #:)

'mistakenly confused' , almost a double entendre, isn't it?

adaptation can be directly linked to evolution if the next generation of the species acts out instinctively.
"learned experiences" are passed onto the next generation.

e.g. the current theory of modern man leaving Sthn Africa and venturing into the world unknown, is based on his adaptation to a new diet.
because of his herbivorous beginnings he was forced to leave and follow the animal herds to sate his new carnivorous diet.
he needed to adapt to his new environment and hence evolved, as we continue to evolve today.
the environment is also evolving, of course.

back to the fishing :) :)
regards
Steve.

[Kendall249]

Don't start me on this one!!! 20000 characters will go in no time if we are talking evolution. The biggest question is in regards to evolution is that we evolved over millions of years, then in a blink, relatively speaking, of an eye we became intelligent. You mentioned how we came fro s. Africa though its only mitochondrial DNA that had been tracked back to Africa. Mitochondrion replicated independent to us and are a different entity, but thats a long story although very interesting. mitochondrial DNA is from maternal line. I'm to tried and had too many to go in to this.

By the way, adaption is a part of speciation and adaption, therefore evolution.

[seatime]

take it with a grain of salt, I'd had too many also :-[ ;)

regards

[rough_shag]

There ya see,now you're going down that well trodden path of debate about evolution etc etc and mate we'd all be on here in 20yrs time still debating that one wouldn't we?.Just to clarify, what I was raving on about before was evolution in the classic Darwinian sense which is kinda different to simple adaptation due to environmental and other effects because Darwin proposed that one 'species' could completely change(evolve) into a completely new species over time which has never been seen to happen or be proven to this day.
Anyway after yesterdays hammering on the high seas it all seems far to deep and meaningful for this little black duck right now.Cheers! Jace.

[PinHead]

There ya see,now you're going down that well trodden path of debate about evolution etc etc and mate we'd all be on here in 20yrs time still debating that one wouldn't we?.Just to clarify, what I was raving on about before was evolution in the classic Darwinian sense which is kinda different to simple adaptation due to environmental and other effects because Darwin proposed that one 'species' could completely change(evolve) into a completely new species over time which has never been seen to happen or be proven to this day.
# # Anyway after yesterdays hammering on the high seas it all seems far to deep and meaningful for this little black duck right now.Cheers! Jace.

I can prove that has happened Jace...been in many a night club...early in the night..no attractive women there...at about 3am those same women have evolved into absolutely stunning women. Seen it with my own eyes I have.

[bidkev]

There ya see,now you're going down that well trodden path of debate about evolution etc etc and mate we'd all be on here in 20yrs time still debating that one wouldn't we?.Just to clarify, what I was raving on about before was evolution in the classic Darwinian sense which is kinda different to simple adaptation due to environmental and other effects because Darwin proposed that one 'species' could completely change(evolve) into a completely new species over time which has never been seen to happen or be proven to this day.
Anyway after yesterdays hammering on the high seas it all seems far to deep and meaningful for this little black duck right now.Cheers! Jace.

I can prove that has happened Jace...been in many a night club...early in the night..no attractive women there...at about 3am those same women have evolved into absolutely stunning women. Seen it with my own eyes I have.



It's not them that have evolved mate..........it's you.....you've just regressed down the evolutionary scale due to the grog ;D

kev

[seatime]

There ya see,now you're going down that well trodden path of debate about evolution etc etc and mate we'd all be on here in 20yrs time still debating that one wouldn't we?.Just to clarify, what I was raving on about before was evolution in the classic Darwinian sense which is kinda different to simple adaptation due to environmental and other effects because Darwin proposed that one 'species' could completely change(evolve) into a completely new species over time which has never been seen to happen or be proven to this day.
# # Anyway after yesterdays hammering on the high seas it all seems far to deep and meaningful for this little black duck right now.Cheers! Jace.

I can prove that has happened Jace...been in many a night club...early in the night..no attractive women there...at about 3am those same women have evolved into absolutely stunning women. Seen it with my own eyes I have.



It's not them that have evolved mate..........it's you.....you've just regressed down the evolutionary scale due to the grog #;D

kev

I've been there too, regressed into a single cell organism, or was that a single organ organism... ;D ;D

[DICER]

it's called chewing an arm off.....or two

[tunaman]

Thats happened to me in my younger days. When home with a beautiful
woman, and woken up with a dugong. ;D ;D ;D




signed tunaman ;D

[manchild]

Funny that happened to me very often tunaman ;D
By the way evolution still sound more believelable than the creation story .No offence for religious people.
George

[tunaman]

Manchild. I couldnt agree with you more. I usually stay away from religious
points of veiw. But in this case, Ill make an exception.
I had some moremens come over one day, and they tried to tell me that the world was made in 7 days. And I said how do you fit in 450 million
years of life on earth. They tried to get away, but I said, if your going to come here and preach to me for what science has allready proven as a fact, well I said, you,ll listen to me. Its only fair. So I when on for half an hour. You,ll never see two godly people so glad to get out of a house.
And when I say, prays from tunaman and family, its only to be polite.
I only beleve in one god, and thats me. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D.
Just joking.
But its funny, when people come close to death, they seem to call on god. I beleve, we live and we die. We are just a page in the history of life.

Some say beings from another world came here and started it all.
And in saying that, if I lived 2000 thousand years ago, and something came out of the sky, Id probably call it god too.

Just some food for thought.


signed tunaman

[manchild]

Yes i couldnt agree more ,the part that gets me if there was adam and eve with two sons ,as we all know one of them died.So this fellow either made love to himself or to one of his parents ;)seriously when i ask this question from the visiting missionaries who by the way seems to enjoy early sunday visits ,they usually turn pale and run away.Again no offence intented.
George

[tunaman]

Did one of them die :o I only got as far as the 10 comandments. I read half of them and tossed it away. ;D ;D ;D.
But the bible was made to control people. They made people fear the word of god, and for they own personal gains, in some respects. And on the good side, it helped to bring people out of the dark ages. etc. Raping,killing, basically it was the frist type of law and order.
Now I think god has served its purpose. And lets face it. religion is not going so well today, is it.
Even after 2000+ years, we havent learnt much.


signed tunaman

[PinHead]

What is wrong with religion today? You may be referring to those that use the name of religion to further their causes but those that do follow their religion are good people.

There has been a lot of deaths in the name of religion over the years but the true followers these days are not like that.

I do not care what religion anyone follows as long as they endeavour to lead a peaceful and law abiding life.

[tunaman]

Here,Here! I couldnt agree more. Each to their own I say.




signed tunaman

[Jekyll]

A rather detailed refutation of "An Inconvenient Truth" is at http://www.cei.org/pdf/5478.pdf

[John_R]

Believe anything pushed by Al Gore?????

You have got to be joking.

There are two types of scientists. #Junk Scientists - Al's mates - and Scientists that follow the correct scientific method.

The Junkies modify/select the data to fit the hypothesis/ideology, while the real scientists modify the hypothesis to fit the data and use controls.

If you cannot use a control to isolate one factor, then the analysis is meaningless - this does not faze the Junkies.

Regards


John

[CHRIS_aka_GWH]

There are ominous signs that the Earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production -- with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now.

The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas -- parts ofIndia,Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia -- where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree -- a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars' worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world's weather. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. "A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale," warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, "because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century."

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth's average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras -- and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average.
Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the "little ice age" conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 -- years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. "Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data," concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. "Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases -- all of which have a direct impact on food supplies. "The world's food-producing system," warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA's Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, "is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago." Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

"The Cooling World": From Newsweek, April 28, 1975. ?1975 Newsweek Inc.

:-?

[bigjimg]

how much coal is burnt to run a computer. all this talk about greenhouse gas.we should all go back to chiseling shit onto stone.i can hear the tide calling. ;) ;)

[tigermullet]

Yes there's a lot of talk about whether global warming is a fact or not. There's an interesting website that I check out for weather predictions at http://www.predictweather.com/

It's done by a NZ man called Ken Ring who is spot on with the weather and also has some interesting views on global warming.

An interesting view that I heard some 20 years go was that gloal warming debate has been caused by the UN wanting to have an equal living stanard for all people. The only way to acheive this is to reduce ours down to the third world, as there is no way to increase the living standard of theirs to ours.

Regards
Steve
Thanks for posting the link to predict weather Seajay. A very interesting site and one that I have added to 'favourites'

[PinHead]

"Rain events to note

Jan 1st week cyclonic, wet down E cost, QSLD and NSW, VIC, WA, mid jan cyclonic in NE
Feb 1st week wet coastal NSW, midmth wet QSLD, NSW, last wk wet QSLD, VIC
Mar 1st week rain NSW, last week wet NSW and SA
Apr 1st week QSLD wet, 2nd week NSW, TAS, 3rd week VIC, 4th week NSW, TAS
May 4th week wet WA, VIC, QSLD, NSW, TAS
June 1st week very cold NSW
Nov 1st week very wet"

The above is from hsi 2007 predictions...not too accurate on the firts week of Jan.

I doubt anyone can accurately forecast the weather long range.

[kc]

I'm with Greg about the accuracy of any long range weather forecasts BUT the predict weather web site makes an excellent common sense read. Worth a visit IMO.

KC

[fishingjew]

a little pic i found of the murry river during drought the locals going for a picnic on the river bed at riversdale the 1st of january 1914 drought what drought. or the start of global warming?

[tunaman]

please delete.

[kc]

Just watched it on DVD and it makes compelling viewing. What a different world we would live in today if this guy had won the US election!!

I have spent a fair bit of time looking at the variuos published reports which are contrary to this production
Everyone should see this and then do some homework. It may just be one side of the coin but it is certainly thought provoking.

KC