Climate evidence is in.

[Halcyon Daze]

"advances in climate change science have therefore broadly confirmed that the earth is warming, that human activity is the cause of it and that the changes in the physical world are likely, if anything, to be more harmful than the earlier science had suggested"

Not only is Climate change proven as being caused by humans, we now hear that we are polluting more CO2 than ever before.

Climate deniers have been sabotaging our precious ecosystems for too long.

Make a stand, support those who are trying to help this catastrophe, reject those who are hindering progress.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2739078.html

http://www.tgdaily.com/sustainability-features/56272-co2-emissions-hit-record-high

[dundee]

Personally not sold on the full story that humans are causing climate change, sure factories and pollution need to be changed, but recorded history of earths climate is seconds compared to its age, cycles come and go, the earth isn't going to sit on a barmy 28degrees all its life

Did humans cause the ice age?

...........................this one can go around in circles for awhile

I'm definitely no expert on this topic, but at the end of the day we do need to live in a sustainable way no matter what

Edited May 31, 2011 by dundee

[Slybacon]

Not even entering this debate again. Not here anyway

[dundee]

Not even entering this debate again. Not here anyway

 

aarrghhh....its pulling me in

EJECT

[santiago]

did you know halcyon that your carbon footprint from making that post and keeping it alive online for possibly thousands to read has also contributed greatly to this climate change conundrum.

the only way is to produce ones own personal electricity via renewable, dispose of all household rubbish enviromentally, not using fossil fuels so that means no car............the list just goes on and on.

what are we meant to do? i feel at fault for the worlds decline but i would have to take myself off the grid and live off the land to reduce my carbon footprint allmost completely, i cant help but say i cant do that...im entrenched in the worlds systems. im part of a system which is depleting the worlds resources and it seems the system will not stop. how can a 6 billion person system stop, i dont think it can....seems our destiny is extinction and then probable recovery of planet earth wiping the slate clean and starting again.

is this such a bad thing? are we not measured in life by our death also, simply an equation of intelligence versus life span of a species, possibly the universal law that the more intelligent a life form the quicker they kill themselves as a species.

[dundee]

did you know halcyon that your carbon footprint from making that post and keeping it alive online for possibly thousands to read has also contributed greatly to this climate change conundrum.

the only way is to produce ones own personal electricity via renewable, dispose of all household rubbish enviromentally, not using fossil fuels so that means no car............the list just goes on and on.

what are we meant to do? i feel at fault for the worlds decline but i would have to take myself off the grid and live off the land to reduce my carbon footprint allmost completely, i cant help but say i cant do that...im entrenched in the worlds systems. im part of a system which is depleting the worlds resources and it seems the system will not stop. how can a 6 billion person system stop, i dont think it can....seems our destiny is extinction and then probable recovery of planet earth wiping the slate clean and starting again.

is this such a bad thing? are we not measured in life by our death also, simply an equation of intelligence versus life span of a species, possibly the universal law that the more intelligent a life form the quicker they kill themselves as a species.

 

its gonna be a mass miracle or a mass extinction..........roll on

[Halcyon Daze]

People, people, don't fear.

The problem is solvable and all it takes is for people to decide, one by one, that they want to do something about it. Over time a change begins to take place, and this is what we are beginning to see in politics. Albeit far slower than any ecologist would like.

The reason I like to post the latest info is because there is so much mis-information spread by those with financial and political interests in opposing action, ie the big polluters and the political parties that do favors for the big polluters.

I try to get to the original reports and speeches so that people can draw their own conclusions rather than hearing it second hand through a biased media outlet like Fox. "We are in an information war and we are losing that war" to quote Hillary Clinton.

What can we do? Stopping pollution isn't that hard, it's fighting the all-powerful oil and coal companies that don't want to let go of their billions.

[Torsten]

I figure that if the deniers are wrong then we just have to make progress much faster at a later date and that is really going to hurt us financially. I am also the kind of person that buys car and house insurance and I don't build in flood plains, so I generally prefer to endure a little pain in the present in order to avoid potential big pain later. if you think a current carbon tax is going to hurt us, jsut think what it will cost if we suddenly have to do 5 times as much in a quarter of the time. So in a way I don't mind that nothing is done at the moment. Why waste all this time and energy on pathetic reduction targets that no nation has been able to meet so far anyway? It's all hot air ;)

Successful societies have always blundered into their own oblivion because of some 'unforeseen' shortage or consequence, so why should it be any different this time! It's not going to make a huge difference to the poor countries and it won't make much difference to the individuals who have already gone it alone. Your kids are going to be pretty pissed at you though because rather than you paying 5% more for your high-pollution goodies now, they'll be paying 50% more.

I do believe that AGW is real and I do believe we will need to make amends, but then again I have already put myself into the position where I can do that without much pain, so I really don't care much about the debate as I am happy to wait till even the last ignoramus finally gets it. if AGM turns out to be wrong then I haven't lost anything. Even if AGM is wrong and we've been paying a carbon tax for a decade, point is that the government uses taxes to build the nation [with varying degrees of efficiency] so it's not like the money is lost or wasted, which is why i can't even begin to understand why people in one of the lowest taxed developed countries are even bothered by the concept of a carbon tax.

Societies are successful if they adapt to changes. Those societies that foresee changes are more successful than others. It's up to each society to make that choice where they want to be and arrogance has never served any of them well.

[tripsis]

Irrespective of whether anthropogenic climate change is real or not (which is quite clearly is), the changes which any sane person would like to see should happen anyway. We've fucked this planet up enough already. It's well past time to start living more responsibly.

[qualia]

a destructive/curious side of me actually wants tony abbot to get in at the next election (he will most likely), and repeal the carbon tax if it's in, and watch the resulting economic debacle that will create. then again the thought of living in a country with that guy as pm is, almost too much to bear.

[cactuscarl]

Global warning is Not caused by co2 or humans. Co2 is taken in by water when it's cold and released when it's hot so the earth may be getting hotter witch is actually the reason why there is more co2 not the other way round. There is more co2 in our ocean than our atmosphere. There has been times when the earth was hotter than now and there has been times when there where more co2 than now. Not that I'm saying that we should stop a carbon tax it's good us economically and we should stop polluting so much but it has nothing to do with global warning

[Francois le Danque]

Global warning is Not caused by co2 or humans. Co2 is taken in by water when it's cold and released when it's hot so the earth may be getting hotter witch is actually the reason why there is more co2 not the other way round. There is more co2 in our ocean than our atmosphere. There has been times when the earth was hotter than now and there has been times when there where more co2 than now. Not that I'm saying that we should stop a carbon tax it's good us economically and we should stop polluting so much but it has nothing to do with global warning

 

carl, what you have said about the carbon being released in hot weather is true. i know this because i have studied climate chemistry at university. however this also causes me to know that you are wrong about co2 not causing the temperature to rise in the first place. both occur. co2 makes it hotter, hotness makes more co2 come from the ocean, and the cycle repeats.

and co2 undoubtedly causes the temperature to rise; a box with a higher co2 level will get hotter than a box with a lower level. this is just a fact. who are you to dispute the evidence anyway? you are not a scientist. do you dispute evolution or gravity?

besides, as others have mentioned, whether or not it is true, it can't HURT to lower emissions. whereas it MAY hurt to let them rise. isn't it better to be safe than sorry?

it also isn't much of a big deal to tax carbon, especially if measures are put in place to stop corporations passing the cost onto consumers, which i am all for. that being said, most consumers need to harden up and use less electricity and petrol.

Edited June 2, 2011 by frank

[Slybacon]

who are you to dispute the evidence anyway? you are not a scientist. do you dispute evolution or gravity?

 

An Intelligent and respectful Human Being with an opinion. Does one need to be a scientist to have a valid opinion, your comment is condecending. You come of as one of those climate hero's no better than a religious extremist.

Most of the topics have been covered in the Global Cooling thread which got moved to Chill Space. So don't see why this thread shouldn't be merged so we are not chasing our tail.

[cactuscarl]

Oooo i knew someone would bite haha

First of all i am disputing the ''evidence'' that the government put forward to sell a carbon tax

How do you know this isn't just an earth cycle where it gets hotter and carbon is released it's happened before long before the industrial revolution. As i said before i totally agree with a carbon tax on a environmental and economical level just not on climate change

Probably shouldn't have presented it so factual as it's mostly my opinion

Ps are you a scientist ?

As you put forward some pretty hard ''facts''

Edited June 3, 2011 by cactuscarl

[mescalito]

I gotta agree with Sly and Tripsis and Dundee on many levels.

Tax the fucking BIG polluters and don't pass the buck down to the lower class.

There's so many other ways to produce energy for nicks and THEY now it...there is a SHITLOAD of solutions that have been submitted,are FREE PATENTS and not being looked at,it's all politics,bullshit,money,money,money.....oh and class segregation.

To quote Dundee"its gonna be a mass miracle or a mass extinction..........roll on "

You are so close to the truth it's not funny....when the individual see's no distinction between themselves and all mankind things will change.

Fuck I wish I'd stay out of these threads.

[Francois le Danque]

Oooo i knew someone would bite haha

First of all i am disputing the ''evidence'' that the government put forward to sell a carbon tax

How do you know this isn't just an earth cycle where it gets hotter and carbon is released it's happened before long before the industrial revolution. As i said before i totally agree with a carbon tax on a environmental and economical level just not on climate change

Probably shouldn't have presented it so factual as it's mostly my opinion

Ps are you a scientist ?

As you put forward some pretty hard ''facts''

 

well firstly the government didn't put forward this 'evidence'; you're talking about empirical findings from many many many studies, undertaken by scientists who know what they are doing AND don't have vested interests (unlike those who work for coal companies etc) except you know, the vested interest in keeping the planet alive. scientists who are, in our society, those deemed to know the most about how things work, as opposed to people with their own opinions which can be founded on anything, rather than evidence. scientists, the VAST majority of whom accept this theory. (scientists don't believe in facts, so saying 'it's just a theory' only further makes one appear ignorant to a scientifically educated person. i'm not saying you have done this, i'm just mentioning it).

edit: i know i used the F word earlier, but whilst it is indeed a fact (unscientific) that a carbon dioxide filled box will heat up more than it's clean counterpart, there is a sound (scientific) theory as to why this occurs. during the course of my studies i have been taught this theory. it is complicated and boring but basically the co2 molecule's shape means it captures more radiation from the sun than other molecules, meaning an atmosphere with more of it will be hotter.

of course other things have caused carbon levels to increase in the past, like volcanoes and stuff (some theorise that's what killed the dinosaurs, not the meteor), but if you look at the time line you see that there are massive spikes in carbon levels at the beginning of the industrial revolution AND the advent of the internal combustion engine etc. and these are reliably large increases.

of course this could be some cosmic coincidence but isn't that being a bit arrogant? to say that humans can't have possibly caused such things? did you know only 100 million people could survive on the planet without farms and other artificial food generation techniques? how can having seventy times the 'natural' amount of people for the planet not have negative consequences? personally i think we're lucky we only get some global warming and not something much worse. also i should point out the amount of carbon in the atmosphere has tripled since the IR, and natural carbon increases would be MUCH slower.

no i am not a scientist, however i will be at the end of the year when i finish my degree. and during my education i have been taught by scientists and taught how to critically evaluate scientific literature to determine what theory best suits the evidence. and the literature says, at the moment, no other theories are workable and so it seems most likely, from a scientific perspective, that climate change is indeed caused by human-produced carbon dioxide.

however my own scientific training (or lack thereof) is irrelevant, and what i meant to point out is that only scientists should have any credence when it comes to debate (which i and scientists welcome) about matters that are intrinsically scientific in nature. of course everyone should get a say in policy regarding such matters as everyone can be potentially negatively affected by climate change. some may also be negatively affected by policy aimed to mitigate the effects of climate change, however i don't believe these effects are nearly as bad as those that would result from climate change itself, and these can easily be reversed in the future, as opposed to CC effects which get more difficult to combat every day we do nothing.

finally i should point out that even if some extraneous force (god farting??) is creating increased carbon levels and subsequent climate change, we still have the capacity to create anthropogenic climate stability. we can create less carbon ourselves, and implement better carbon capturing techniques (you can't go past having more trees!). is it fair to say 'well fuck man, i didn't do it, i better let all of tuvalu drown and countless species go extinct'. because even if we don't cause it (which the vast majority of the scientific community agrees we did), we can still stop it.

ps i'm sorry if i caused anyone offence but it offends me when people don't respect the earth and take responsibility for it's welfare. i thought we ethnobots were meant to be into that sort of thing?

Edited June 3, 2011 by frank

[Halcyon Daze]

First of all i am disputing the ''evidence'' that the government put forward to sell a carbon tax

How do you know this isn't just an earth cycle where it gets hotter and carbon is released it's happened before long before the industrial revolution.

 

There's 163 references in 'The Garnaut Review 2011' How much evidence do you want?

If you want to form such a strong opinion on climate change you should at least read the reports.

[WoodDragon]

First of all i am disputing the ''evidence'' that the government put forward to sell a carbon tax

How do you know this isn't just an earth cycle where it gets hotter and carbon is released it's happened before long before the industrial revolution.

Against my better judgement...

1) CC, on what basis are you disputing the scientific evidence?

2) What are your bona fides to analyse and dismiss the immense body of science that underpins the understanding of the physics and chemistry of 'greenhouse' gas-induced warming?

3) How do you know that it is "just an earth cycle where it gets hotter and carbon is released"? What are your primary references to justify this speculation?

4) Can you name and reference the "earth cycles" where warming "happened before long before the industrial revolution", and most particularly can you list the physical forcings that were operating then, that are similarly operating now?

Given that you are disputing the science, you should be able to come up with the answers immediately.

PS, I'm a scientist.

Edited June 3, 2011 by WoodDragon

[hutch]

Not even entering this debate again. Not here anyway

 

Go on Sly....It wouldn't be the same with out you.....

[hutch]

well firstly the government didn't put forward this 'evidence';

 

Franks right about this one.....the government brought the advise that they were after...simple as that....

[hutch]

I can't stop laughing at the title of this thread....."evidence is in"? and things are looking grim.....Did Juliar tell you that? Or was it the ever laughable and confused Tim Flannery...Or maybe that ever so bright economist Garnaut? You know...the ones on Juliars payroll.

Don't worry children...It just a scare campaign but the wheels are slowly falling off it....Don't let those nasty little scientists scare you

They have been proven wrong so many times in the past....anyone old enough to remember Global Cooling? Some of the very same scientists....their making shit loads of money out of their new religion....

Save the planet by all means...fall for this rot....I don't think so......

I couldn't help myself Slybacon.......It was just sitting there begging me to comment

[WoodDragon]

Don't let those nasty little scientists scare you

They have been proven wrong so many times in the past....anyone old enough to remember Global Cooling? Some of the very same scientists....their making shit loads of money out of their new religion....

Hutch, can you list in the scientific literature where climate scientists have been proved wrong*? Note, blog science doen't count, because any numptie can say any loads of crap on a blog.

Can you indicate how many scientists thought that there was going to be global cooling soon, and exactly how sure they were that it was going to occur? Can you indicate what the time frame was that they were postulating for global cooling, and how it related to the time frame for carbon dioxide-induced atmospheric heating?

* On the matter of climatologists being proved wrong, would you care to comment on the fact that Anthony Watts, whose whole raison d'être was to prove that there was no warming in the USA, finally got someone to analysis the results of his 'surface stations' project. And guess what? The scientists were bang on the money the whole time. Oopsie, climatologists 1, Watts 0. And yet he carries on as if nothing happened.

What's up with that?

[Edited for spelling.]

Edited June 4, 2011 by WoodDragon

[Halcyon Daze]

How many of you deniers actually bother to read the actual reports?

Here's a link to the report itself.

http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/garnaut-review-2011/garnaut-review-2011.pdf

It's pretty heavy going so you may like to start with the summary

http://www.garnautreview.org.au/update-2011/garnaut-review-2011/summary-garnaut-review-2011.pdf

You people really should educate yourselves, if you had to do an assignment it would show that you haven't even read the most critical literature.

As for Garnaut and Flannery, they are highly respected in their fields and have published vast amounts of literature. If they were dodgy or unethical the scientific community would have raised concerns already.

I think you deniers just like to make it up on the fly sometimes. Oh well, no point arguing with fools.

[hutch]

Hutch, can you list in the scientific literature where climate scientists have been proved wrong*? Note, blog science doen't count, because any numptie can say any loads of crap on a blog.

Can you indicate how many scientists thought that there was going to be global cooling soon, and exactly how sure they were that it was going to occur? Can you indicate what the time frame they were postulaing for global cooling, and how it related to the time frame for carbon dioxide-induced atmospheric heating?

* On the matter of climatologists being proved wrong, would you care to comment on the fact that Anthony Watts, whose whole raison d'être was to prove that there was no warming in the USA, finally got someone to analysis the results of his 'surface stations' project. And guess what? The scientists were bang on the money the whole time. Oopsie, climatologists 1, Watts 0. And yet he carries on as if nothing happened.

What's up with that?

 

How disappointing.....that took near 7 hours for a bite... But it was predictable......bang on the money....Didn't think it would be Woody this time but. Seems you can't keep a good scientist down

[hutch]

How many of you deniers actually bother to read the actual reports?

Here's a link to the report itself.

http://www.garnautre...review-2011.pdf

It's pretty heavy going so you may like to start with the summary

http://www.garnautre...review-2011.pdf

You people really should educate yourselves, if you had to do an assignment it would show that you haven't even read the most critical literature.

As for Garnaut and Flannery, they are highly respected in their fields and have published vast amounts of literature. If they were dodgy or unethical the scientific community would have raised concerns already.

I think you deniers just like to make it up on the fly sometimes. Oh well, no point arguing with fools.

 

That report is not worth the paper it is printed on. He is a economist not a scientist and a dud one at that.... Seems I've found another true believer bless their little hearts....

If they were dodgy or unethical the scientific community would have raised concerns already.

Took me a bit to compose myself after reading that little pearl of wisdom.....still got tears running down the old cheeks.....Sorry Halcyon Daze, you will never convince me...I find the whole thing laughable.....and as for the carbon tax.....crock of shit!