Report aims to combat climate 'misinformation'

[Michaelangelica]

Report aims to combat climate 'misinformation'

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/08/16/2984712.htm?section=justin

By environment reporter Sarah Clarke (http://abc.net.au/news/people/sarahclarke/?site=news)
Posted Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:02pm AEST
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200704/r137175_466265.jpg (http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200704/r137175_466271.jpg) The statement says global emissions must peak within a decade and decline rapidly if dangerous climate change is to be avoided. (Reuters: Ilya Naymushin)



Audio: Scientists unite in fresh warming warning (PM) (http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/news/audio/pm/201008/20100816-pm7-climatescience.mp3)



Some of the nation's top scientists have united in a new climate statement which issues fresh warnings about the dangers of global warming.
The statement released by the Australian Academy of Science is a first for the organisation and details the key evidence identified globally by climate scientists.
It says carbon emissions need to be cut by more than half by 2050 if there is to be a good chance of keeping temperature rises to less than two degrees.
It also says global emissions must peak within a decade and decline rapidly if dangerous climate change is to be avoided.
Kurt Lambeck from the Australian National University says current misinformation is confusing the public debate and the warnings need to be identified.
"It's because we've been concerned about the nature of the climate change debate in recent times," he said.
"We see the quality of the science improving with time but the debate seems to be degenerating in some ways."
Professor Lambeck says one of the reasons behind the degeneration is that the science is very complex.
"Climate science is really at the sort of intersection of a whole lot of basic science areas," he said.
"Now a lot of people understand elements of those basic sciences but they don't understand the complexities that occur when you try to put it all together.
"People get confused over those minor, what are essentially secondary issues and in that process the whole level of the debate degenerates."
Professor Lambeck says the complexity of the issue may be one reason both sides of politics seem to have shelved the issue of climate change.
"I suspect both sides find it hard to understand what they should be doing," he said.
"Some time ago the major parties both recognised that climate change was a real threat and that, you know, action needed to be taken.
"But we've lost that consensus between the two parties."
'Severe' impact

Professor Lambeck says the statement looks at global temperatures, which he says have increased by "about a degree" over the last century.
"A degree doesn't sound like very much but it appears that its impact on regional climate can be quite severe," he said.
"Now when I say one degree, that is the global average surface temperatures.
"There are parts of the globe that have been subjected to much larger changes in more recent times.
"Whether that's part of a long term trend or whether that's part of some of the natural variability or whether these are oscillations, that's something that we don't know yet because our records are too short."
Scientific questions

The statement makes the point that no scientific conclusion can ever be absolutely certain.
But Professor Lambeck does not think that leaves the conclusions open to sceptics and critics.
"The underpinning parts - the fact that CO2 is increasing, the fact that CO2 increases results in global temperature rises, the fact the CO2 has a long residence time in the atmosphere - these are facts that are extremely unlikely will ever be overturned by new information," he said.
"Where the scientific questions arise is in the feedbacks that occur between the various components.
"We're not totally clear on that and we may not have the right way to put that into our forecast.
"But these are factors that will affect the rate at which things will change.
"They're extremely unlikely to affect the change in direction of what we are observing."
The Greens say the report shows the major parties need to do more to deal with the threat.
Greens Senator Christine Milne says the big parties are acting as if climate change is not real.
"Both parties are trying to ignore climate change and this is big turnaround from 2007 when the Labor Party told Australians that it was a great moral imperative and they would act on it," she said.
"Part of the reason for that is the sceptics campaign that has been aided and abetted by Tony Abbott and the Coalition."
Tags: environment (http://www.abc.net.au/news/tag/environment), climate-change (http://www.abc.net.au/news/tag/climate-change), government-and-politics (http://www.abc.net.au/news/tag/government-and-politics), federal-government (http://www.abc.net.au/news/tag/federal-government), australia (http://www.abc.net.au/news/tag/australia)

[gardenlen]

g'day michael,

see the picture i would suggest that is not in australia and i would suggest that where the pic' was taken that country has many more belchers on their horizon than what has been shown. of all the power station images shown of aussie stations that i have seen i have never seen anything that comes anywhere near as bad as that picture.

so if this climate change is in fact proven to be real, then those countries causing that obvious pollution should be made to clean up their acts first, then our less than poultry 2% contribution will mean nothig to the climate, not a spit in the bucket amere drop in teh ocean of this thing.

so as the one fringe party wants to do we shut down all industry or most of same, shut down coal fired power stations in prefference for expensive nuclear power, we stop all fishing on the eatern seaboard! what then the implications look clear to me, and they haven't managed to save a tree yet. all our industry employment goes off shore (still creating pollution) the only seafood we will get is i,ported stuff from polluted waterways. with all that less tax being paid and all those extra people on some sort of welfare, might come close to sending us broke. ah feel good a solid way to make policy.

len

[ecodharmamark]

G'day Len

Please allow me to respond to your points:


see the picture i would suggest that is not in australia and i would suggest that where the pic' was taken that country has many more belchers on their horizon than what has been shown. of all the power station images shown of aussie stations that i have seen i have never seen anything that comes anywhere near as bad as that picture.

I tend to agree. I am not aware of any current site in Australia where the stacks are misaligned like those displayed in the picture. Of course, 50 or 100 years ago, the above picture would have been a common site on any Australian urban landscape. The remnant, now heritage listed chimneys dotted throughout scenic and historic Bendigo (Australia) today are a testament to this.

On the subject of Australian, coal-fired power stations. Here in Victoria, we are saddled with one of the most polluting, brown-coal fed stations in the world (http://www.aboutcarbon.com.au/fossil-fuels/hazelwood)! Just because today's standards require that most of the large particulate matter (smoke) is captured, does not mean that huge amounts of CO2 and NOx are still being emitted.

http://www.greenpeace.org/raw/image_full/australia/admin/image-library2/hazelwood-in-action.jpg

The old days...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/66/Hazelwood_Power_Station_ESP.jpg

Today... The smoke (particulate matter) has mostly gone, but not the Greenhouse Gases (GHG)...

Hazelwood power station is now owned by a UK consortium. All profits from this filthy monster go out of Australia. Hazelwood has now been given licence to to mine brown coal at the 'west field', just near the station itself for the next 25-years (http://www.ipplc.com.au/the-company/assets/hazelwood-power-station-and-mine/)!


so if this climate change is in fact proven to be real, then those countries causing that obvious pollution should be made to clean up their acts first, then our less than poultry 2% contribution will mean nothig to the climate, not a spit in the bucket amere drop in teh ocean of this thing.

Yes Len, in terms of gross output, Australia is a small player. However, we can not escape the fact that per capita, we are one of the world's biggest GHG producers in the world (http://www.garnautreview.org.au/chp7.htm)!

It's all about leadership, Len. Why do you practice permaculture? If you do it merely to just satisfy your own needs, and at the same time reduce you own carbon footprint, then I say 'good on you'! If however, and as I suspect, you do it as a way of demonstrating to others that there is a better way of living, for both humanity and the planet, then I also say 'good on you', but I will add, 'good on you for being a leader'!

Since Australia is among the top GHG polluters in the world, surely then leadership on combating the effects of Climate Change need to start here? Australia is in a unique position to provide true global leadership on this matter. We have the renewable resources, wind, solar and geo-thermal, and we have the expertise (http://www.science.org.au/reports/documents/AusRenewableEnergyFuture.pdf) to put it together as a viable alternative to non-renewable sources of energy.


so as the one fringe party wants to do we shut down all industry or most of same, shut down coal fired power stations in prefference for expensive nuclear power, we stop all fishing on the eatern seaboard! what then the implications look clear to me, and they haven't managed to save a tree yet. all our industry employment goes off shore (still creating pollution) the only seafood we will get is i,ported stuff from polluted waterways. with all that less tax being paid and all those extra people on some sort of welfare, might come close to sending us broke. ah feel good a solid way to make policy.

I presume here, Len, that you are referring the the Greens?

Let's have a look at the facts:

"...shut down all industry or most of same"

Not so. In fact, the Greens advocate for greater, fairer and smarter workforce participation (http://greens.org.au/policies/sustainable-economy/employment-and-industrial-relations).

"...shut down coal fired power stations in prefference [sic] for expensive nuclear power"

Not so. In fact the Greens have energy policy goals (http://greens.org.au/policies/climate-change-and-energy/nuclear) which include:

6. a nuclear-free Australia.
7. a nuclear-free world.
8. safe, long-term containment of Australia’s existing nuclear waste.
9. the elimination of nuclear weapons through a Nuclear Weapons Convention.
10. the elimination of depleted uranium weapons.
11. safe, ecologically sustainable energy options.

"...stop all fishing on the eatern [sic] seaboard"

Not so. Currently, Australia's (indeed the world's) offshore commercial fishing models are not sustainable (http://www.conservation.org/FMG/Articles/Pages/disturbing_costs_unsustainable_fishing.aspx). The Greens merely want to bring this practice back into a sustainable framework (http://greens.org.au/policies/environment/marine-and-coastal-areas):

16. introduce an Oceans Act that coordinates sustainability of ocean uses through a statutory National Oceans Authority, reporting to the parliament, and enforcing ecosystem-based regional management plans and targets.

"...they haven't managed to save a tree yet"

Not so. The Greens have worked hard to ensure that one of our most important assets in terms of Climate Change abatement, trees, are well protected. They will continue to do so under the following edict (http://greens.org.au/policies/environment/environmental-principles):

24. adopt a continent-wide approach to protection and restoration of Australia’s natural environment, its rivers, wetlands and aquifers, wild lands and marine ecosystems, including the protection of old growth and high conservation value forests and other ecosystem types such as woodland, heathland, marshland, dune systems and grasslands and their wildlife.

I could go on, Len, but I am sure that you would feel more comfortable reading the policies at your own leisure:

The Greens - Policies (http://greens.org.au/policies/environment/environmental-principles)

Climate Change and Non-renewable Resource Depletion are the greatest threats to human existence the world has ever seen. I realise this might be difficult for some people to acknowledge, Len, and I in now way do I mean to be disrespectful to your own or any other's personal belief structure. But you did ask for the 'facts':

"...so if this climate change is in fact proven to be real"

The fact is, if the world (including Australia, who as I have already outlined is well positioned to be a great leader) does not act, and act soon, then there is a great possibility that our children, their children, and their children's children will inherit a world vastly different from our own. One that is filled with much suffering, or even one that fails to exist.

All of the world's respected scientists, scholars, and people of faith understand this fact, Len. We don't have a lot of time left. Dangerous climate change effects are already upon many peoples of the world, and if we don't act, and act soon, catastrophic effects will be the norm, rather than the exception in the very near future.

Thanks for taking the time to read the above, and for following up on the links I have provided.

Peace to you, Markos.

[gardenlen]

g'day markos,

here it is again that per capita figure it allows the big polluters someplace to hide, the important factor if it is realy a factor is the gross input, like saying when the mashed potato is dished out there is the same amount in place in total but it is just as much as what was in the pot of 200 million people or 300 million people it is a wrong measure to use. using it means the big POLLUTERS will never do anything about their problem if it is truely a problem. so the more those others populate the beter their figure looks.

now i don't know how many coal fired stations we have in australia, i also don't know how many in india, the USA and europe. but i bet we don't have 300++ units like china now already has real belchers, adn they plan another 300++ tp bring it up to 0ver 600 still using our coal which of course we will still be minning for them, still no sense in it.

no it's not per capita they don't use per capita with road carange and they should not use it in this fiasco to give the big boys someplace to hide, and hide they are india has already pointed to our per capita measure. we need to get real, there's enough rubber about this whole affair already.

probably good indicator here as to how backward victoria might be hey, appears we are more advanced up here.

len

[ecodharmamark]

g'day markos,

here it is again that per capita figure it allows the big polluters someplace to hide, the important factor if it is realy a factor is the gross input, like saying when the mashed potato is dished out there is the same amount in place in total but it is just as much as what was in the pot of 200 million people or 300 million people it is a wrong measure to use. using it means the big POLLUTERS will never do anything about their problem if it is truely a problem. so the more those others populate the beter their figure looks.

now i don't know how many coal fired stations we have in australia, i also don't know how many in india, the USA and europe. but i bet we don't have 300++ units like china now already has real belchers, adn they plan another 300++ tp bring it up to 0ver 600 still using our coal which of course we will still be minning for them, still no sense in it.

no it's not per capita they don't use per capita with road carange and they should not use it in this fiasco to give the big boys someplace to hide, and hide they are india has already pointed to our per capita measure. we need to get real, there's enough rubber about this whole affair already.

probably good indicator here as to how backward victoria might be hey, appears we are more advanced up here.

len

We are the leaders, Len. You, me, and 99% of the people that frequent this forum. This is cause to celebrate, but we must not rest on our laurels.

Following is an ABC "Big Ideas" talk on urban food production. It (in my humble opinion) is a brilliant discussion on what it is that we need to do in order to survive into the future, and indeed provide a sustainable place for our children, and their children to just simply live:

There's Something Rotten in the Food Chain (http://www.abc.net.au/tv/bigideas/browse/video_popup.htm?vidURL=/tv/bigideas/stories/2010/04/12/2870065-mediarss-full.xml&vidTitle=There's Something Rotten in the Food Chain&vidLength=Full)

Brendan Gleeson, one of the speakers in the above 'talk', has recently published the book Lifeboat Cities (2010) that features in my reading list, below. It is now available in most libraries, and I would urge anyone who has an interest in permaculture to read it, and to think hard about what Gleeson suggests as just one way of visioning for future world better than what we have at present. It's not a perfect solution, that Gleeson puts forward, but it at least gets the ball rolling.

It is a global issue, Len, and we need to plan for and implement a global solution. We (by far the majority of us that post here) are doing 'our bit' in our own back yards, but we need to go further. We need to take it to the world. We need to stand up and present a future world that is better, healthier, happier, and more planet-sustaining that the one we inhabit at present. One way of doing this is through our various permaculture projects. Permaculture is not just about 'organic gardening', it represents a platform for a new way of living sustainably, one which all the world's people can embrace - if only they knew it existed.

Once again, thanks for reading my views on the subject (however, I am sure that you will understand that I do not just write them for your benefit alone).

Cheerio, Markos.

[gardenlen]

markos said:
"We need to stand up and present a future world that is better, healthier, happier, and more planet-sustaining that the one we inhabit at present. "

and the poor will be destitute and our economy which is needed for us to live even simply will be blown out of the water with this carbon trading debacle, wild plans like this will do the people no good, and lots of those yuppy types who are the true high end resource users will be the new poor and when it happens they will be looking for heads but it will be way to late the horse would have bolted, and these carbon schemes like the falsity of the climate change it is suppoed to fix will just like a vacuum cleaner suck up money and return nothing, and oh i dunno 100's of years time they will look back and say what idiots dreamt this up?

if it is going to work as many allude to ( and mind you they have not as yet answered my previous questions of "how much $'s and pain" and "how long before we know it is fixed"), so if it is going to work them make the big boys clean up their backyards and show us how this rubbery process will deliver. truth is they and that includes the US is waiting for little old big ego australia (or should i say little ole young aus') do do it and fall on their faces while they watch and say now you know why we didn't go that way. and you know what i can't blame them for not wanting to cruel their economies.

but keep digging up the coal hey!!

len

[ecodharmamark]

Sorry Len, I thought we were on the same page, but it now appears that we are not even reading from the same book!

Len, I am not now, nor will I ever advocate for a change to our current socio-economic system of governance which will see the poor become poorer, and the rich become richer. I would have thought this point was obvious from all of my past posts, but it seems that I have failed to get the message across in this regard, at least as far as you are concerned. For this, I am sorry.

Please allow me to try and clarify my position:

I believe that climate change and non-renewable resource depletion are the two major threats to the continuation of the human species. I believe that these threats are not some distant concern, but are in reality happening today!

I believe that in order to give our species (and 95% of all other species on the planet) a slight chance of surviving into the future, that we humans must change the way that we organise society, and in doing so that way that we live. I believe that this needs to happen on a global scale, but I am aware that my ability to help this change happen is limited to my own sphere of influence - my community (of which the PRI Forum is part of).

I don't believe we have an ecological problem, I believe we have a social problem. As Murray Bookchin once said:

...present ecological problems cannot be clearly understood, much less resolved, without resolutely dealing with problems within society. To make this point more concrete: economic, ethnic, cultural, and gender conflicts, among many others, lie at the core of the most serious ecological dislocations we face today...

Source: What is Social Ecology (http://134.173.117.152/anarchist_archives/bookchin/socecol.html)

I urge you to watch/listen to the video link that I have previously provided in this thread. It really does tackle many (if not all) of the issues that I am sure we will all love to continue to discuss here.

These are exciting times, Len, but for many they are also worrying times. I somehow remain (in the face of huge adversity) optimistic that we humans as a global entity can 'transition' through the coming crisis, and find true peace and prosperity on the 'other side'. I look forward to making this journey with you, and with all of our friends - 'our community' - that frequent this Forum.

Cheerio, Marko.

[Flying Binghy]

Must be nice to sit around on ones bum spruiking some fairytale daydream...

... reality check ... China has taken an aggresive investment/ownership position in Australia's coal mines. China would buy out all Oz coal mines if it were alowed....

Stop coal mining yer say... :think:






.

[gardenlen]

mmm dunno?????!!

whilst ever my posterior points south coal mining will never stop so all the other they want to do looks more rubbery than ever.

len

[ecodharmamark]

mmm dunno?????!!

whilst ever my posterior points south coal mining will never stop so all the other they want to do looks more rubbery than ever.

len

G'day again, Len

That is your opinion, and you have every right to express it. I happen to believe otherwise. I also believe that while people such as yourself believe that "...coal mining will never stop", coal mining will never stop. We create the world we live in. We are our own worst peril. We live 'by the coal', and we will die 'by the coal'. Unless we decide to change - en masse. It is our choice. I'm choosing to fight (via the pen, not the sword), other's choose to lay down and die. It is one's own choice to make. There is nothing more that I can add to this conversation other than to say, I sincerely wish for you and those around you the best you can muster out of our grim situation. Good luck on your journey.

Markus

[gardenlen]

oh!!

and if stop coal minning where will china gets its coal for all these new power stations?(that otherhwise seemingly intelligent people seem to be in denial of) yep some other country might do it lots out there, so even if not in australia coal minning will persist so it make this climate thingy a furphy. and our gov' are going to need coal sales to try and prop up our failing economy as the carbon taxes bight (that is what climate change is all about) in an effort to control the furphy. coal minning is a fact of life sorry! just how i see it and it currently is.

you said that our community might come together and we can make good change, well not while they are looking for providence in the wrong place it won't happen, don't go there len, the masses do not want to know, and i don't feel i should set my characte up for destruction, due to lack of edicate.

yes markos we do have good chats they never get personal but we do have differences of opinion that is what makes a healthy world go round. so a little sad to see some personality coming into the chat. i could say the same thing about how people vote from within their comfort zones as the end results will affect my life, a result i played no part in.

len

[Flying Binghy]

Hmmm, is this the Prof. Bird listed in the report ?...

Professor Bird plans to develop an integrated process-based understanding of the interactions between biogeochemical cycling, climate change and human activities in the tropics on a range of time scales.
His research will assist to: predict the response of tropical ecosystems to future environmental changes; develop effective methodologies for improved carbon sequestration, verifiable carbon accounting and emissions trading; and achieve sustainability in the use of natural resources. http://www.politicalowl.com/People/ABC/birdmichael.htm





---------------------------------
(How Government funding affects climate science) …Unfortunately, laboratories concerned with the climate issue have to be extremely careful about relations with their source of funding since there is normally no other source of any significance. In the same manner as their financial master, they need to be careful not to step too far away from alignment with public belief…

Quote via “The Climate Caper” by Garth Paltridge. Atmospheric physicist and a former Chief Research Scientist with CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research

[ecodharmamark]

oh!!

and if stop coal minning where will china gets its coal for all these new power stations?(that otherhwise seemingly intelligent people seem to be in denial of) yep some other country might do it lots out there, so even if not in australia coal minning will persist so it make this climate thingy a furphy. and our gov' are going to need coal sales to try and prop up our failing economy as the carbon taxes bight (that is what climate change is all about) in an effort to control the furphy. coal minning is a fact of life sorry! just how i see it and it currently is.

you said that our community might come together and we can make good change, well not while they are looking for providence in the wrong place it won't happen, don't go there len, the masses do not want to know, and i don't feel i should set my characte up for destruction, due to lack of edicate.

yes markos we do have good chats they never get personal but we do have differences of opinion that is what makes a healthy world go round. so a little sad to see some personality coming into the chat. i could say the same thing about how people vote from within their comfort zones as the end results will affect my life, a result i played no part in.

len

G'day Len

Seems that you are giving me another chance to try and explain the situation a little better? I will try to do my best.

True, China is continuing to build coal-fired power stations, and likewise true, Australia continues to export 80% of its coal to China.

Here in Australia, Len, not only are we the dirtiest CO2, NOx, and other GHG polluters in the world, but we export a lot of our pollution to developing regions in the form of coal/oil/gas exports, and $2 plastic Santa Clause imports - we really are the filthiest nation on the planet, Len. This is why if we decide to change our disgusting ways, we can have the greatest impact on the world as leaders in climate change abatement. What stronger message to send to the world - we were the dirtiest, but now we are the cleanest!

I am sorry that you feel I am attacking you by responding to your posts, Len, and that you feel this is because of your self-described lack of education, but this is never the case. Some of the smartest people I know have never been to school, and I value their input into my life just as much as I value yours. Everything I write about, none of it is about you personally, Len, nor is it about me. I abhor the 'me me' society that we live within, and long for the day when I do not just share my intimate life with a few fellow communards, but are instead surrounded by those that think for the good of the (global) community and not just for themselves.

Returning to China: I know the common belief is that they are heavy polluters, but in fact they are fast becoming a world leader in cutting emissions. I suspect that this fact rarely makes prime time television on the commercial TV stations, but I would not know, because I do not watch them. If you, Len, are interested in learning more about China's plan for a post-carbon society, I think you will find the following an interesting read:

China’s National Climate Change Programme (http://www.ccchina.gov.cn/WebSite/CCChina/UpFile/File188.pdf)

At least China has a plan, Australia is yet to produce one. And, China has (at last count) about 1.4-billion people to provide food, water and shelter for. Under the circumstances, I personally believe they are doing a good job.

As they say in China, Len, 再见

[gardenlen]

that's ok markos,

sounds like teh rubbery figures have you sold and that's ok we all are blessed with the ability to believe diffrent things, australia the dirtiest? suppose i could ask have you ever breathed the smog in say new york or si taht an illusion? and when china had the olympics they had to shut down their industry so the air would clear enough to see how to get to the olympic village, that too did not happen? yeh australia the dirtiest rite and which scientist says that? the one who promotes this climate change furphy the one who has the most to gain if the furphy gets believed, that's ok that is just man's greed looking after self interest at play. their speculation cannot even prove that carbon is doing anything to the climate that is all hypothasy. yep last time i saw aussie cities where not shrouded in smog so thick you could cut it.

len

[gardenlen]

can't see wher to edit so here goes:

what percentage of the austrlian populas get supplied with grid power 90% would it be, what % of the chinese population gets supplied with and uses grid power?? that the big per capita question could be as low as 60% or as high as 80% but when they work out pro rata they divide pollution imput by the total population me thinks. also to throw into the pot as i see there is a huge lower socio economic population in china that would create very small amounts of pollution unless you want to count breathing and flatuating people? so when the rubbery figure makers do the calculation divide by all those bike riding people, makes them look so good hey? now add in some things like access to and being able to build a modest home by aussie standard, owning a modest motor car and the use of all those modest white goods, wonder then what the more truer rubbey picture may be? don't forget public transport that creates pollution as does producing fresh drinking water which i would guess many of the chinese poor don't get, but they get counted en-masse, but don't go the civil liberties, freedom of speachs way etc.,. etc.,..

len

[Flying Binghy]

Sooo, i'm thinking that Prof Bird will not be getting any future 'funding' unless he can push the CO2 is bad angle. If he said CO2 is good that would be the end of his job i geuss... ;)


While on the 'funding' issue.... have a look-see at this -

" ...The “privately-owned” Chicago Climate Exchange is heavily influenced by Obama cohorts Al Gore and Maurice Strong.

For years now Strong and Gore have been cashing in on that lucrative cottage industry known as man-made global warming..." http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9629

Amazing stuff if true.


I wonder how true this is - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PVTWid3zIY0

That Beck fellow seems a bit of a looney.... though he is with FOX news.... and if he was telling some porkys ah geuss the defamation legals would be well under way by now....
...red phone... :grin:



... and back to the thread subject.

Having a read through the 'names' involved with the report i see's more and more just what Garth Paltridge commented on...

(How Government funding affects climate science) …Unfortunately, laboratories concerned with the climate issue have to be extremely careful about relations with their source of funding since there is normally no other source of any significance. In the same manner as their financial master, they need to be careful not to step too far away from alignment with public belief…

“…Most of the developed countries have institutionalised their greenhouse activity within government agencies devoted specifically to mitigation of global warming. Their budgets are enormous. It is not likely that the public servants who staff them will be receptive to doubts about their reason for existence. Nor, for that matter, are the actual research institutions concerned with global warming likely to bite the hands that nowadays feed them. “

Quote via “The Climate Caper” by Garth Paltridge. Atmospheric physicist and a former Chief Research Scientist with CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research


Time to have a look-see at some other report names...




.

[DonHansford]

...and the poor will be destitute and our economy which is needed for us to live even simply will be blown out of the water with this carbon trading debacle, wild plans like this will do the people no good, and lots of those yuppy types who are the true high end resource users will be the new poor and when it happens they will be looking for heads but it will be way to late the horse would have bolted, and these carbon schemes like the falsity of the climate change it is suppoed to fix will just like a vacuum cleaner suck up money and return nothing, and oh i dunno 100's of years time they will look back and say what idiots dreamt this up?
len

Perhaps the "economy which is needed for us to live even simply" is , if not the root cause, at least a major cause in the whole shebang.
A few short generations ago, nobody "owned" land - nobody paid someone to build a house for you, the whole village chipped in and helped. And you, in turn, helped build a house for the following generation. You grew - and traded what you grew (or made) for stuff you couldn't grow or make.
The biggest problem I see, with regards to "climate change" or any other buzz-worded societal ill, is that nobody wants to turn off their air-conditioner, or park their car - but they all want "someone" to fix the problem.
Well - Permaculture does hold the solutions - but (as Markos says) WE need to lead, not sit here whinging about not being able to keep the second car, or the Armani suits, unless China stops burning our coal. We need a political party that is greener than the Greens, and until we do that, we will get the government we deserve, and the head-in-the-sand policies it brings.

Regards
Don

[gardenlen]

yep don,

lead to where maybe like lambs to the slaughter?

of course these scientists won't tell the truth they put at risk a cushy income.

to move forward we may have to move back as to what i imagine you allude to?

anyhow in the face of being hung, drawn and quatered, let God bless and protect the poor if this pandora's box is opened today.

the plight of the poor and down trodden doesn't seem to fit into some comfort zones.

we lucky to have one modest car and what's a suit?? maybe a bit of issue clouding going on here don?

len

[Flying Binghy]

Something about climate misinforemation....

" It's Official: NOAA Finds That Russian Heat Wave Was 100% Natural - CO2 Warming Not Even A Factor "


Who's NOAA - " National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is a federal agency focused on the condition of the oceans and the atmosphere " http://www.noaa.gov/



http://www.c3headlines.com/2010/08/its-official-noaa-finds-that-russian-heat-wave-was-100-natural-co2-warming-not-even-a-factor.html

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/19/noaa-on-the-russian-heat-wave-blocking-high/






.

[Flying Binghy]

Jo Nova and Co have a look-see at the 'report '...

" An interesting story quietly slipped into the news last week during the election campaign. It crosses several new lines, none of which it acknowledges.

Not only are the Western Climate Establishment sitting up and paying attention to skeptics, they’re slowly getting the hang of having the climate debate, and they have finally realized they can’t pretend the “science is settled” on climate feedbacks..."

http://joannenova.com.au/2010/08/head-of-australian-science-academy-issues-decree-from-pagan-chieftans-of-science/






.

[Flying Binghy]

.

Some interesting comments here -

" Respected American physicist, Dr Charles R. Anderson, has waded into the escalating Satellitegate controversy publishing a damning analysis on his blog.

In a fresh week of revelations when NOAA calls in their lawyers to handle the fallout, Anderson adds further fuel to the fire and fumes against NOAA, one of the four agencies charged with responsiblity for collating global climate temperatures. NOAA is now fighting a reargaurd legal defense to hold onto some semblance of credibility with growing evidence of systemic global warming data flaws by government climatologists...

... website operated by the Michigan State University had published ridiculously high surface water temperatures widely distributed over the lake many indicating super-boiling conditions. The fear is that these anomalies have been fed across the entire satellite dataset. The satellite that first ignited the fury is NOAA-16. But as we have since learned there are now five key satellites that have become either degraded or seriously compromised..."

http://www.climatechangefraud.com/climate-reports/7525-leading-us-physicist-labels-satellitegate-scandal-a-catastrophe





.