The other side of the Climate Change Debate....

This is all very confusing, have all the other scientists who consider human activity is contributing to global warming got it wrong?
Ian Rutherford Plimer is an Australian geologist, professor emeritus of earth sciences at the University of Melbourne, professor of mining geology at the University of Adelaide, and the director of multiple mineral exploration and mining companies. He has published 130 scientific papers, six books and edited the Encyclopedia of Geology.
Born
12 February 1946 (age 67)
Residence
Nationality
Australian
Fields
Where Does the Carbon Dioxide Really Come From?
Professor Ian Plimer could not have said it better!
If you've read his book you will agree, this is a good summary.
PLIMER: "Okay, here's the bombshell. The volcanic eruption in Iceland . Since its first spewing of volcanic ash has, in just FOUR DAYS, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet - all of you.
Of course, you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying to suppress - it's that vital chemical compound that every plant requires to live and grow and to synthesize into oxygen for us humans and all animal life.
I know....it's very disheartening to realize that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished while suffering the inconvenience and expense of driving Prius hybrids, buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kids "The Green Revolution" science project, throwing out all of
your non-green cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat, vacationing at home instead of abroad,
Nearly getting hit every day on your bicycle, replacing all of your 50 cent light bulbs with $10.00 light bulbs.....well, all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just four days.
The volcanic ash emitted into the Earth's atmosphere in just four days - yes, FOUR DAYS - by that volcano in Iceland has totally erased every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time - EVERY DAY.
I don't really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should mention that when the volcano Mt Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in all its years on earth.
Yes, folks, Mt Pinatubo was active for over One year - think about it.
Of course, I shouldn't spoil this 'touchy-feely tree-hugging' moment and mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-recognized 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which
keeps happening despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change.
And I do wish I had a silver lining to this volcanic ash cloud, but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.
Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping carbon tax on you, on the basis of the bogus 'human-caused' climate-change scenario.
Hey, isn't it interesting how they don't mention 'Global Warming'
Anymore, but just 'Climate Change' - you know why?
It's because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming bull artists got caught with their pants down.
And, just keep in mind that you might yet have an Emissions Trading Scheme - that whopping new tax - imposed on you that will achieve absolutely nothing except make you poorer.
It won't stop any volcanoes from erupting, that's for sure.
But, hey, relax...... and have a nice day!"

There seems to be two totally differing opinions on the reason for climate change ,but either way ,I think we will probably still have it . History as we know it backs this up , but whether or not we are speeding the process up seems to be the real question ..................oh well at least the govt .has found a way to make money  out of it
( then there is this argument to add confusion to global " warming " LOL  http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/question7801.htm  or this one   http://americablog.com/2014/03/climate-change-gulf-stream-could-cause-ice-age-europe.html )

I can`t help but be addicted to doco`s on SBS & ABC, ( and rarely ever watch commercial TV ) and what your saying there Barry, after watching my obsessive doco`s, has been almost common knowledge for a long time, from what I understand, but in main stream media, is always portrayed in a different light, and its left to the individual to make up their own mind on what their brain washed with, as I guess, I am as well.

I`ll still do my bit for the world when it comes down to consumerism, and buying more than I need, or the next best shinny thing.

The one thing I do focus on, is littering....I can`t stand people that litter, which in turn ends up in the water ways, and in the ocean,  to then in turn effect the ecosystem, by be eaten by sea creatures.... so on and so forth.

My pet hate is smokers who flick their butts out their windows, and also cause fires for no reason. You got an ash tray, USE IT.

It should be a $1000 fine for every butt flicked!!

AGREED , some people still think its ok to throw a fag on the ground ,step on it ,and walk away . Shits me no end . Smoke all you like   , but don't
make me swim in your trash .Climate change , depends which day you ask me but today its 40+ deg  so it real .

Does anyone still think CC isn't happening? 
The debate is over our contribution to it.
The volcano may well have contributed to a huge increase but there's no reason for us humans to continue with abandon our over consumption of the planets resources. 

I haven't read the book but know scientists fall into a couple of categories.  This dude is funded and made a career out of mining and huge industry. Think about that. Others are extremely left wing. I'd like to find one from somewhere in the middle.

I think what this guy is trying to point out is that the human contribution is insignificant.
There is however some merit in us as a race trying to keep our home clean, to reduce pollution be that from factories or from the arseholes that throw trash out of cars. To stop the destruction of our rainforests, as still goes on in lots of other countries.
And to start replanting, and encourage real recycling. You'd be surprised at how much of our recycled waste is dumped into landfills.
To one day find an alternative fuel source for our vehicles, because we will run out of oil. And I don't believe hybrids are the answer.

No I'm not a tree hugging hippy, just a common sense concerned citizen of this world.

Unsustainable population growth is behind much of the problem.  The figures and graphs showing global population growth since the beginning of humanity are alarming.  More people is more demands on the planets resources, which in turn leads to more clearing of the trees that are vital to CO2 absorption and O2 production. More people = more demand for power, more demand for steel, more mining, more garbage to deal with, more of everything really.  Figures show the earth's population will again double between 1974 and 2025.  If we want to stop destruction of the planet, we better work out a way to halt population growth.

Much easier said than done.  In fact, absolutely zero discussion of this major contributing factor in any climate change debate I've seen on Oz tv.

Remember, climate change councils funded by the gov't produce only the reports the gov'e wants to hear - their funding gets cut otherwise.  If you want an alternative view of the one peddled in the media (particularly under a labour/greens coalition gov't that we had from 2010 to 2013), then read the scientific reports from non-gov't funded scientific bodies - that is where the fact came from that the planet has in fact cooled over the past century (no idea why this should come as a surprise, we are after all heading towards another ice age, albeit incredibly slowly, as the earth shifts on its rotational axis - it oscillates up to 3.5 degrees every 40,000 years).

The far south coast of NSW region here just had its coldest August on record, and November looks like it may follow suit (the overnight low temps are running below the long term average but the max daily temps are slightly higher - 15 days to go to see if they both drop below the long term average).  Yesterday's max temp was a corker - less 21.3 degrees lower than Friday's temp (37.3 for Fri, 16 for Sat).

You cannot trust the impartiality of the ABC, or in fact, most media, and that is where many people get their "knowledge" from. A Senates Estimates hearing earlier this year revealed EVERY journo working for the ABC has an affiliation with the Labour Party - so if you think that will not lead to bias you'd be dreaming.  It's on the Hansard record.  It must be pretty obvious to everyone that Fairfax is pro-labour and Murdoch is pro-Liberal so opinions formed solely on media coverage are non impartial.

I won't ever believe that the carbon tax was not just introduced to attempt to address a gov't debt problem by a minority gov't tied at the hips to the greens after failing to win enough seats to form gov't in their own right (same as Liberal).  And the greens openly admit they have no policies to run a country.  

Ah well, it will frustrate all of us - just don't spend your days in bed producing more than two offspring.

That's all I'm saying on this thread, irrespective of who cares to put forward alternative views. 

Yes - getting someone who is willing to provide the middle ground view is difficult, added with the beat-up from the press and you are left wondering sometimes.  There is no doubt things are changing, just go out in the sun here in Tassie for 5 minutes without protection - that ozone hole seems pretty big to me.

I love how figures are touted around, and if reported enough times becomes reality.  Point in case the 97% of scientist agree that humans are contributing SIGNIFICANTLY to climate change.  This 97% mentioned by many (even Obama) came from a couple of different surveys, here is a breakdown of just two of them:

"The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make." and "The survey's questions don't reveal much of interest. Most scientists who are skeptical of catastrophic global warming nevertheless would answer "yes" to both questions. The survey was silent on whether the human impact is large enough to constitute a problem. Nor did it include solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists or astronomers, who are the scientists most likely to be aware of natural causes of climate change."

And closer to home: "In 2013, John Cook, an Australia-based blogger, and some of his friends reviewed abstracts of peer-reviewed papers published from 1991 to 2011. Mr. Cook reported that 97% of those who stated a position explicitly or implicitly suggest that human activity is responsible for some warming. His findings were published in Environmental Research Letters." and "Mr. Cook's work was quickly debunked. In Science and Education in August 2013, for example, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils- Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work."

Mind you I did get this info from the Wall Street Journal - so it's probably biased the other way in line with industry  

There is no debate that we can do things better, be more efficient and less wasteful, that is just a sensible thing to do with any finite resource, be oil, forests or your morning shower.  Its when someone makes up figures, reports them as fact, then is proven to have doctored the numbers that you start to loose faith in the message.

It wont be a problem Ewok the human race will wipe itself out in the coming years, because we still haven't learnt to live in peace.

Nothing new about our understanding of climate change.

I recall listening to a 78 record at a friend's place back in 1973 (I think).

I think it was Wayne and Shuster, a Canadian comedy pair talking about our role on this planet.

In summary, the presenter explained that us humans breath in oxygen and exhale CO2.

Plants on the other hand take in CO2 and in return produce oxygen.

The bottom line was that regardless of your attitude, whether you were a rich or poor person or whether you were good or bad, every time you exhale you make a little flower happy.

we are all but worms, living on an apple, that we are slowly consuming.

Worms......apples .........flowers , sounds like we all need a good dose of better homes and gardens .

There's a multitude of doco's around warning about the dire consequences of climate change,  but why don't we see the opposite view just as frequently?  Simple,  who is going to make a doco saying "Relax,  the earth is humming along nicely,  all part of the natural order of things."

Also, there's no money to be made in saying "Everything's fine."  On the other hand the climate change (nee - Global Warming) alarmists are having money thrown at them by governments to 'cure the problem'.

My take on most things is simplistic and practical.  

If you want to lose weight - exercise more, eat less. "Diet Programs" are for gullible people who think they can buy their way to better health.  We've been conned by a food industry.  Food as entertainment, Food as a health fad, Food as a style statement.  Your thin people, worldwide, are those for whom food is a significant expense.  It is not for us, it is a luxury item.  What's this to do with Climate change - nothing.  It's an analogy. 

The world's climate changes.  There have been ice ages and great warmings since before humans could have any influence at all, with no general trend ie.  The earth has not steadily cooled, nor steadily warmed in fossil record times.  There have been cycles that have had nothing to do with humans. There is a lot of speculation about the impact of humans on climate.  Glacial shrinkage world wide suggests it is warming.  When it gets colder, they grow. Much confusion is introduced when people overlay concepts related to long geologic time onto the view we have of a few generations.   

Hey, there are products to sell, taxes to raise and anything will do as an excuse to milk this for what it's worth where we can alarm people, make them feel that they are in someway responsible and convince them that they can make a difference by doing one thing or another. 

Governments are complicit in this.  They want to be seen as action orientated.  They want to see economic growth, they want to be able raise revenue to pay for all their good ideas, and of course, stay in office.  It is useful to keep the populace optimistic, however ignorant, with a sense they might be able to do something about this problem.  Where there is a product to sell, profits to be made, the potential to tax, any notion of the truth pretty much goes out the window.  With no shortage of appropriate products and people to market them, here is a recipe for success. "Kick start" it with a rebate scheme.  Hey there is plenty of money around.  Look at how they spend it. Now we can take our cut in taxation.  

They (we) should be addressing things which truly are sobering insofar as implications for the future.  But we have a new and great big wave of consumerism here based on a saleable concept. Catch it while you can. Don't fuck it up. - It's sure to last longer than the last.  We will continue to be milked to fulfil our need to live in what would appear to be a modern home with all the latest mod cons and technology, drive a vehicle which is a "valid environmental statement" so we can keep our end of the bargain by continuing to pay "what the market can bear" rates on everything, all the while ignoring simple things like living close to one's work, considering how many kilometres your food has travelled to reach you, or how far you have to travel to do simple shopping, or even the practicalities associated with producing a little food on one's own.   

As for the environment, how many know what to do with used batteries?  What percentage of all batteries sold just end up in land fill?  Another take? Or live in a free standing house 3 metres from the next one with a landscape dominated by tiled roofs, concrete and bitumen where once there was productive farmland, woodland or forest, an hour or two (and sometimes much further) away from your place of work, put drinking water on lawn, so you can mow it. That's how much we really care.  Never mind, the Great Aussie dream is another good money-go round too.

Where did the hole in the ozone layer go?

!Tag wrote:Where did the hole in the ozone layer go?

Maybe it grew a scab & healed itself  

!Tag wrote:Where did the hole in the ozone layer go?

The Chinese bought it.