http://greenairradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/teachin1970.jpg   http://www.greenopia.com/image/news/Earth%20Day%201970.jpg

These pictures are from 1970, the first Earth Day. As you can see, back then they were predicting that the Earth would be destroyed by 1990. That was 40 years ago. It's now 2010 and the Earth is still liveable enough that people can still attend "Earth Day", and they do. In fact it's even bigger now than it was back then. We now have "Earth Hour" where everybody is supposed to turn their lights off for an hour. Seriously, I'm not even joking.

So how is 1970 different to 2010? Is it a different crisis now or the same crisis just worse? Well, if you look at what was published in the early 1970s, the crisis is essentially the same but the problem seemed to be cooling not warming. In 1970 the SCEP published a report titled "Study of Critical Environmental Problems", which reported the possibility of global warming from increased carbon dioxide. The following year a paper was published in the journal 'Science' titled "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate", which was one of the first to suggest man-made contributions to climate change. It also however claimed that global cooling would be the result of man-made greenhouse gas pollution and carbon emissions because particulate pollution would block sunlight.

In the following years, the National Science Board, the National Academy of Science, as well as popular media like Time Magazine and Newsweek published reports on global cooling claiming that that there'd been half a degree (fahrenheit) drop in the Earth's average ground temperature. In fact, the Newsweek article suggested intentionally melting the Arctic ice cap as a solution. The picture painted by the mainstream media and the environmental movement back then was dramatic. People would starve because crops wouldn't grow, natural disasters would increase, and the world as we know it will be dead by 1990 (or 2000, according to some reports).

So what are we to conclude? That environmentalists were wrong back then or that they were kinda right but we know a lot more now? In either case I think recent history teaches us to exercise caution in regard to environmental hysteria. The media and environmentalists on the 1970s were urging government to do something about the climate crisis. The most they did was pass Clean Air and Water acts. But as a whole the 1970s left environmentalists feeling like the government failed to act. But what happened as a result of their failure to act? Did the world end in 1990? No, where still here and enjoying a better quality of life than we did in 1970. Which makes me believe that if we acted in 1970, we would have ruined our way of life for no reason. The world didn't end in 1990. It was a good thing that government failed to act for so long because the longer they waited, the more time we had to find the truth and discover that the claim of the early 1970s were inaccurate. If they acted early they would have acted on false claims.

So that makes me think, if we hold off climate change action for another few years, will we slowly discover that the claims of the late 1990s and early 2000s were also exaggerated and inaccurate? Is it worth destroying the economy and our way of life if global warming could turn out to be as phoney as global cooling? Well if you ask a Greenie they will say, "yes!". Because to them, moving to a "green economy", imposing heavier regulations and taxes on corporations, increasing government control, are the most important things. There proposed solution is more important to them than the problem, insofar as if the problem turns out not to be as big as previously thought, they would still want to implement their solution. That's because at their heart, they are really just anti-capitalists.

http://www1.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Environmental+Activists+March+DC+Ahead+Copenhagen+dtzU-yl0E1Jl.jpg

Here is a photo of some environmental activists protesting at last year's Copenhagen conference on climate change. "Corporations keep out"? "Planet over profit"? "Corporations" "corporations" "profit" "money" "greed" "greed" "greed", that's all I see and hear at these environmental protests. These people aren't environmentalists. They are anti-corporation, anti-globalisation and anti-capitalism. Socialism is a fine, debatable idea, but don't mask it as environmentalism. Green is the new red. I just wish they would embrace that and be honest about who they are and what they really stand for.

Nicely put, accurate post Bob....but there is no way that they'll believe you....

That's just trolling Bob and pretty light weight at that. You need to be better than that. :D

Almost enough to make me want to vote Green out of spite or Liberal to quicken our demise.

"Trolling", "pretty light weight"... ouch, the rath of the bandwagon jumpers. Geez, I just don't know how to come back from that. Such a well thought out, convincing, information rebuttal with facts and figures to boot. I guess I was wrong about climate change. We have to abandon this stupid capitalist system that brought so many people out of poverty and ride around on bicycles all day. I get it now.

oops - a climate skeptics party. Thanks for the heads up.

muso wrote on Aug 20^th, 2010 at 6:35pm:

oops - a climate skeptics party. Thanks for the heads up.

more like climate realists/rationalists

Hey Bob, Hi Bob.
How do you think it's going to go?
Do you think you have a prayer?

muso wrote on Aug 20^th, 2010 at 6:35pm:

oops - a climate skeptics party. Thanks for the heads up.

LOL yeah...Like the 'World will end in Nuclear Destruction' party in the 1950's...
And the 'World will end in pollution death' party of the 1960's...

Seeing a 'theme' yet muso????

Quote:

Well, if you look at what was published in the early 1970s, the crisis is essentially the same but the problem seemed to be cooling not warming.

Let me guess. You didn't actually look at what was published did you?

Environmentalism as a cause has had it`s credability eroded by corruption andd dishonesty.  The real loser is the environment!

freediver wrote on Aug 20^th, 2010 at 7:08pm:

Quote: Well, if you look at what was published in the early 1970s, the crisis is essentially the same but the problem seemed to be cooling not warming. Let me guess. You didn't actually look at what was published did you?

No, I haven't read the full reports, I've just read summations and quotes from the reports. Have you read the reports?

I don't think there were any. Prior to global warming, the issue of the earth cooling was barely on the radar because it was happening so slowly. To suggest that reading these imaginary reports would highlight some kind of similarity between the situations is absurd. It is just an attempt to create an impression of inconsistency when there is none.

freediver wrote on Aug 20^th, 2010 at 9:17pm:

I don't think there were any. Prior to global warming, the issue of the earth cooling was barely on the radar because it was happening so slowly. To suggest that reading these imaginary reports would highlight some kind of similarity between the situations is absurd. It is just an attempt to create an impression of inconsistency when there is none.

lol, that's amusing. You implied some incredibility on my part because I didn't read the reports, then I come to find out you didn't even read my post. If you kept reading just a few more sentences after the one you quoted, you'd see I actually mentioned some titles. And if Newsweek never published stories about a global cooling crisis that was going to see the word end by 1990, then why'd they issue a retraction and apology in 2005 saying they were spectacularly wrong?

Quote:

The picture painted by the mainstream media and the environmental movement back then was dramatic. People would starve because crops wouldn't grow, natural disasters would increase, and the world as we know it will be dead by 1990 (or 2000, according to some reports).

It is kind of hard to take that seriously.

freediver wrote on Aug 20^th, 2010 at 10:06pm:

Quote: The picture painted by the mainstream media and the environmental movement back then was dramatic. People would starve because crops wouldn't grow, natural disasters would increase, and the world as we know it will be dead by 1990 (or 2000, according to some reports). It is kind of hard to take that seriously.

exactly ;)

"The Cooling World" by Peter Gwynne
April 28, 1975
- Newsweek

original scan: http://www.junkscience.com/apr05/coolingworld.pdf

excerpt:

Quote:

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.

Could just as easily have been written last week.


Some quotes predicting that global warming/cooling will destroy the planet, or at least the human race, by 2000 (or even earlier):

I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000 -- Paul Ehrlich in (1969)

In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish. -- Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)

Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion -- Paul Ehrlich in (1976)

This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000. -- Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976

If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age. -- Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)

Hard to take seriously, isn't it?

Quote:

exactly

I mean it is hard to take your claim seriously that that is how it was portrayed in the media back then. You appear to be deliberately confusing a fringe movement back then with a mainstream movement today. You are creating a false association by pretending they are the same thing.

Obviously the scientific community would have been all over the cooling as well as the warming because it was really happening and it was very interesting and important. But I cannot believe that there is any kind of similarity between the political movent to take action on the cooling and the modern political movement to take action on warming.

Even if there is, it still does not make sense to use it as an excuse for inaction. It's like your driving a car and you refuse to swerve left to avoid a tree because 50 meters back you just swerved right. So you hit the tree instead. Well done.

I agree with your title Bob but not necessarily your angle.

The environmentalists are making claims about:

(1) Association between carbon and global warming

(2) Association between carbon emissions from humans and global warming

So it's up to these claimants to prove the association by

(1) Show irrevocable proof how much humans contribute to carbon emissions relative to all others - in percentage terms ie 1%, 2%

(2) Show irrevocable proof how reducing 1% to the above equation will reduce global temperature

They won't

Because they can't!

The onus of proof is on the accuser not the accused

It doesn't really matter, because if the forecasts are indeed true, then your opposition is plenty enough to ensure that the current paradigm will continue.

The likes of (massive) China and (massive) India have a good case to oppose any restrictions that the western world might try to impose upon them, as they have not yet been the cause of this foretold catastrophy and have not yet been allowed to use their "quota" to catch up with western economies...only 'cause those backward dumbasses didn't know how of course.

Our political parties oppose and block each other for any realistic remedy to the projected sickness. Nothing much happens there.
If anything realistic were to be attempted, then we, the public, will stop it because it might threaten our comfy drone lifestyle.

In the end, we might even run out of enough resources to kill ourselves anyway, but not for lack of trying.
The world itself will probably dictate to us what's what and who's who.

There's really no use being scared, or trying to do something about it..'cause a remedy ain't gonna happen at the hand of no human.
I'm happy to just trust in God, or "Kay Sarah Sarah" on this one.

It may be strangely ironic (or very predictable), that our economic woes are also due to a lack of what we want to keep using to destroy ourselves.
..If only the world would let us.i

If its such a mainstream issue, how come 3/4 of Australians voted to get rid of the carbon tax? This is where you get to tell everyone how stupid most Aussies are.

muso wrote on Aug 20^th, 2010 at 6:35pm:

oops - a climate skeptics party. Thanks for the heads up.

Lol muso the LDP is a Libertarian party, that means there are some for/against the idea of AGW but either view is irrelevant to the party policies  because the belief is there are other ways transition from C02 technologies and deal with potential climate change (man made or not), it's a small government party so they aren't going to vote for any Carbon taxes either way.

However those that are scared of AGW have proposed the usual free market ideas of legalising things like Thorium I think it was[?] and reducing the barriers to entry to allow the market to adapt via entrepreneurs much easier.

So yeah either way it's not a party that would take an official stance about AGW but rather that government is not the solution and neither are taxes.

hazy123 wrote on May 17^th, 2014 at 8:28am:

If its such a mainstream issue, how come 3/4 of Australians voted to get rid of the carbon tax? This is where you get to tell everyone how stupid most Aussies are.

Not sure where you got your figure from, considering that it was never actually put to a vote directly.

Maqqa wrote on Jul 18^th, 2011 at 10:34pm:

I agree with your title Bob but not necessarily your angle. The environmentalists are making claims about: (1) Association between carbon and global warming (2) Association between carbon emissions from humans and global warming So it's up to these claimants to prove the association by (1) Show irrevocable proof how much humans contribute to carbon emissions relative to all others - in percentage terms ie 1%, 2% (2) Show irrevocable proof how reducing 1% to the above equation will reduce global temperature They won't Because they can't! The onus of proof is on the accuser not the accused

No one can show irrevocable proof of anything, that isn't how science works.


Quote:

Scientific understanding of the cause of global warming has been increasing. In its fourth assessment (AR4 2007) of the relevant scientific literature, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reported that scientists were more than 90% certain that most of global warming was being caused by increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases produced by human activities.

It's not 100%, but 90% is still pretty good.

BobH wrote on Aug 20^th, 2010 at 2:48pm:

http://greenairradio.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/teachin1970.jpg   http://www.greenopia.com/image/news/Earth%20Day%201970.jpg These pictures are from 1970, the first Earth Day. As you can see, back then they were predicting that the Earth would be destroyed by 1990. That was 40 years ago. It's now 2010 and the Earth is still liveable enough that people can still attend "Earth Day", and they do. In fact it's even bigger now than it was back then. We now have "Earth Hour" where everybody is supposed to turn their lights off for an hour. Seriously, I'm not even joking.

Science has come a long way since then, we now understand for more than we did. The knowledge isn't perfect, of course, but you can't simply discount current scientific understanding because some past claims where wrong. That is part of the process of science, if something turns out the be wrong they figure out why and refine the concepts.


BobH wrote on Aug 20^th, 2010 at 2:48pm:

So what are we to conclude? That environmentalists were wrong back then or that they were kinda right but we know a lot more now? In either case I think recent history teaches us to exercise caution in regard to environmental hysteria.

We know vastly more now. It's not just the claims of the environmentalists, it's the claim of nearly all climate scientists. To the best of our knowledge, warming will [continue] occur and will do so primarily due human activity. It isn't an arbitrary claim either, unlike the global cooling ideas, there is strong evidence backing the position.


BobH wrote on Aug 20^th, 2010 at 2:48pm:

The media and environmentalists on the 1970s were urging government to do something about the climate crisis. The most they did was pass Clean Air and Water acts. But as a whole the 1970s left environmentalists feeling like the government failed to act. But what happened as a result of their failure to act? Did the world end in 1990? No, where still here and enjoying a better quality of life than we did in 1970. Which makes me believe that if we acted in 1970, we would have ruined our way of life for no reason. The world didn't end in 1990. It was a good thing that government failed to act for so long because the longer they waited, the more time we had to find the truth and discover that the claim of the early 1970s were inaccurate. If they acted early they would have acted on false claims.

The problem was lack of understanding. Global cooling may created news headlines, but it was never accepted as the mainstream scientific position. It had little actual support from most scientists, which is not the case for global warming.


BobH wrote on Aug 20^th, 2010 at 2:48pm:

So that makes me think, if we hold off climate change action for another few years, will we slowly discover that the claims of the late 1990s and early 2000s were also exaggerated and inaccurate?

It's always possible something additional has been missed. Some of the details are likely to be incorrect because global climate is very complex. So far though, more and more evidence supports the position of global warming via human activity.


BobH wrote on Aug 20^th, 2010 at 2:48pm:

Is it worth destroying the economy and our way of life if global warming could turn out to be as phoney as global cooling? Well if you ask a Greenie they will say, "yes!". Because to them, moving to a "green economy", imposing heavier regulations and taxes on corporations, increasing government control, are the most important things.

It's not a requirement to destroy the economy or our way of life. Just be a bit smarter about it all. Many renewable energy sources are starting to become reasonable, and reducing pollution has more benefits regardless of the warming or not.


BobH wrote on Aug 20^th, 2010 at 2:48pm:

There proposed solution is more important to them than the problem, insofar as if the problem turns out not to be as big as previously thought, they would still want to implement their solution. That's because at their heart, they are really just anti-capitalists.

Some people are, as you mentioned against capitalism. Climate scientists around the world will obviously hold a variety of views on politics, but most of them agree on climate change.

Capitalism is an economic system for resource distribution. Trying to use to it to solve problems that are not primarily economic can be risky. The free market may well come up with a solution, but that doesn't mean it;s the best solution, the most rational solution or a solution the minimises suffering.

I cant see any credible reference in 1970 of us being stuffed by 1990 ?

Is that one of those made up denier stories to discredit environmentalist ?

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 19^th, 2014 at 11:58am:

I cant see any credible reference in 1970 of us being stuffed by 1990 ? Is that one of those made up denier stories to discredit environmentalist ?

This one is quite amusing:

“The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

Kenneth Watt, Ecologist, 1970

  Sometimes I feel like screaming!  >:(

       I don't care any longer if humanity caused or contributed to Global Warming!
       The simple truth is that it IS happening, and even if we now turned off every car, every factory, every generating station, it will keep happening!
      The process has started, whatever the initiator, and nature has this nasty habit of exponential expansion, so once begun it can and will get rapidly worse. Just think of all that methane locked up in the now melting Arctic permafrost!
      Arguing causation now is akin to the crew of the Titanic arguing about who left which door open!
     Our boat IS sinking, and we should be "building lifeboats" , instead of all this idiotic disputation and futile attempts to bolt the stable door.
      Most of the worlds major cities, population centres and Industries are near water, and that water is going to come a'çreeping in as we brawl uselessly!
      Nothing we need to do will be easy, nor popular, nor cheap, but if we don't start now then the suffering and destruction will be incredibly worse eventually.
     Political expediency and blind idiocy is dooming the human race to a future of loss and pain on a scale never seen before, we'll be lucky if we only fall back to Medieval standards!  >:(

     http://i1237.photobucket.com/albums/ff467/Carshotts/glaciers1.jpg

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 19^th, 2014 at 11:58am:

I cant see any credible reference in 1970 of us being stuffed by 1990 ? Is that one of those made up denier stories to discredit environmentalist ?

There were some claims, but it was never taken seriously by most of the scientific community. Take a look

greggerypeccary wrote on May 19^th, 2014 at 12:07pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on May 19th, 2014 at 11:58am: I cant see any credible reference in 1970 of us being stuffed by 1990 ? Is that one of those made up denier stories to discredit environmentalist ? This one is quite amusing: “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years. If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.” Kenneth Watt, Ecologist, 1970

It was an unusual thing to say, because no one since has been able to find data to support his theory that "The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years".

He was a zoologist, and probably didnt have access to the data anyway. Certainly not a peer-reviewed statement.

BobH wrote on Aug 20^th, 2010 at 2:48pm:

Well, if you look at what was published in the early 1970s, the crisis is essentially the same but the problem seemed to be cooling not warming.

Don't make stuff up Bob.  It just makes you look like a dill.  Even though growing sulfate aerosol polllution was a problem at the time in the 1970s - the majority of the scientific papers published at the time identified warming due to GHG emissions as being an ongoing issue.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1


BobH wrote on Aug 20^th, 2010 at 2:48pm:

The media and environmentalists on the 1970s were urging government to do something about the climate crisis. The most they did was pass Clean Air and Water acts. But as a whole the 1970s left environmentalists feeling like the government failed to act. But what happened as a result of their failure to act?

WTF are you talking about?
You just mentioned that Clean Air and Water acts were passed.  How is this "failure to act".  IN the US in particular - the Clean Air Act of 1970 had a drastic effect on reducing sulfate aerosols.  This later evolved into a very successful emissions trading scheme.

These were back in the days when governments took advice from science - and were not full of ignorant conspiracy theory nut jobs like today.


BobH wrote on Aug 20^th, 2010 at 2:48pm:

Did the world end in 1990?

Nobody said it Would Bob.  Stop making stuff up.


BobH wrote on Aug 20^th, 2010 at 2:48pm:

No, where still here and enjoying a better quality of life than we did in 1970. Which makes me believe that if we acted in 1970, we would have ruined our way of life for no reason.

They did act in 1970 Bob.  They passed legislation to reduce aerosols that were polluting the atmosphere and causing acid rain.
Later they introduced and ETS - because this was the most cost effective way to achieve emission reductions.  It still is.
Then in 1987 - global governments acted to ban CFCs.

This is all ongoing work Bob.
Why do you want to stop now and bury your head in the sand?
Global warming will not go away, just because ignorant conspiracy theorists don't understand it.


BobH wrote on Aug 20^th, 2010 at 2:48pm:

The world didn't end in 1990.

Nobody said it Would Bob.  Stop making stuff up.


BobH wrote on Aug 20^th, 2010 at 2:48pm:

It was a good thing that government failed to act for so long because the longer they waited, the more time we had to find the truth and discover that the claim of the early 1970s were inaccurate.

The world has been acting Bob.
Clean Air Acts
Clean Water Acts
Montreal Protocol
Kyoto Protocol

And the world continues to act - albeit slowly against global warming.

If you got your information from other sources than Andrew Bolt - you would know that Bob.




BobH wrote on Aug 20^th, 2010 at 2:48pm:

So that makes me think, if we hold off climate change action for another few years, will we slowly discover that the claims of the late 1990s and early 2000s were also exaggerated and inaccurate?

No Bob.  We will only discover that you are an idiot.
But we have pretty much worked that out already.



BobH wrote on Aug 20^th, 2010 at 2:48pm:

Is it worth destroying the economy and our way of life

How exactly will using methods other than burning coal to produce electricity "destroy the economy and our way of life" Bob?

There are a lot of ways to make electricity Bob.  Many already a lot cheaper than coal

rabbitoh08 wrote on May 19^th, 2014 at 12:34pm:

BobH wrote on Aug 20th, 2010 at 2:48pm: Well, if you look at what was published in the early 1970s, the crisis is essentially the same but the problem seemed to be cooling not warming. Don't make stuff up Bob.  It just makes you look like a dill.  Even though growing sulfate aerosol polllution was a problem at the time in the 1970s - the majority of the scientific papers published at the time identified warming due to GHG emissions as being an ongoing issue. http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1 BobH wrote on Aug 20th, 2010 at 2:48pm: The media and environmentalists on the 1970s were urging government to do something about the climate crisis. The most they did was pass Clean Air and Water acts. But as a whole the 1970s left environmentalists feeling like the government failed to act. But what happened as a result of their failure to act? WTF are you talking about? You just mentioned that Clean Air and Water acts were passed.  How is this "failure to act".  IN the US in particular - the Clean Air Act of 1970 had a drastic effect on reducing sulfate aerosols.  This later evolved into a very successful emissions trading scheme. These were back in the days when governments took advice from science - and were not full of ignorant conspiracy theory nut jobs like today. BobH wrote on Aug 20th, 2010 at 2:48pm: Did the world end in 1990? Nobody said it Would Bob.  Stop making stuff up. BobH wrote on Aug 20th, 2010 at 2:48pm: No, where still here and enjoying a better quality of life than we did in 1970. Which makes me believe that if we acted in 1970, we would have ruined our way of life for no reason. They did act in 1970 Bob.  They passed legislation to reduce aerosols that were polluting the atmosphere and causing acid rain. Later they introduced and ETS - because this was the most cost effective way to achieve emission reductions.  It still is. Then in 1987 - global governments acted to ban CFCs. This is all ongoing work Bob. Why do you want to stop now and bury your head in the sand? Global warming will not go away, just because ignorant conspiracy theorists don't understand it. BobH wrote on Aug 20th, 2010 at 2:48pm: The world didn't end in 1990. Nobody said it Would Bob.  Stop making stuff up. BobH wrote on Aug 20th, 2010 at 2:48pm: It was a good thing that government failed to act for so long because the longer they waited, the more time we had to find the truth and discover that the claim of the early 1970s were inaccurate. The world has been acting Bob. Clean Air Acts Clean Water Acts Montreal Protocol Kyoto Protocol And the world continues to act - albeit slowly against global warming. If you got your information from other sources than Andrew Bolt - you would know that Bob. BobH wrote on Aug 20th, 2010 at 2:48pm: So that makes me think, if we hold off climate change action for another few years, will we slowly discover that the claims of the late 1990s and early 2000s were also exaggerated and inaccurate? No Bob.  We will only discover that you are an idiot. But we have pretty much worked that out already. BobH wrote on Aug 20th, 2010 at 2:48pm: Is it worth destroying the economy and our way of life How exactly will using methods other than burning coal to produce electricity "destroy the economy and our way of life" Bob? There are a lot of ways to make electricity Bob.  Many already a lot cheaper than coal

The world stage since 2007 has become aware of new Open Technology that's cuts coal burning to the power of 300 but not reduce electricity generation.

This same technology not require Coal at all and at the same temperature of steam produces 300 hundred times more power.

China up took the technology in 2010 and now Russia is suppling China gas for operations.

Australia remains committed to Steam and its high cost of power production, not to mention the lakes of drinking water being emptied to keep them on line!

---

Amadd wrote on Jul 19^th, 2011 at 8:45am:

The likes of (massive) China and (massive) India have a good case to oppose any restrictions that the western world might try to impose upon them, as they have not yet been the cause of this foretold catastrophy and have not yet been allowed to use their "quota" to catch up with western economies...only 'cause those backward dumbasses didn't know how of course. Our political parties oppose and block each other for any realistic remedy to the projected sickness. Nothing much happens there. If anything realistic were to be attempted, then we, the public, will stop it because it might threaten our comfy drone lifestyle.

Precisely. We better pray it's false, coz if it's true, we're all buggered anyway.

Quote:

Why we shouldn't act on climate change

Different day and a different excuse to do nothing - what a surprise.

Vuk11 wrote on May 17^th, 2014 at 12:43pm:

muso wrote on Aug 20th, 2010 at 6:35pm: oops - a climate skeptics party. Thanks for the heads up. Lol muso the LDP is a Libertarian party, that means there are some for/against the idea of AGW but either view is irrelevant to the party policies  because the belief is there are other ways transition from C02 technologies and deal with potential climate change (man made or not), it's a small government party so they aren't going to vote for any Carbon taxes either way. However those that are scared of AGW have proposed the usual free market ideas of legalising things like Thorium I think it was[?] and reducing the barriers to entry to allow the market to adapt via entrepreneurs much easier. So yeah either way it's not a party that would take an official stance about AGW but rather that government is not the solution and neither are taxes.

Non-sensical rationale here: what is the stance on subsidising the problem?

8-)

Maqqa wrote on Jul 18^th, 2011 at 10:34pm:

I agree with your title Bob but not necessarily your angle. The environmentalists are making claims about: (1) Association between carbon and global warming (2) Association between carbon emissions from humans and global warming So it's up to these claimants to prove the association by (1) Show irrevocable proof how much humans contribute to carbon emissions relative to all others - in percentage terms ie 1%, 2% (2) Show irrevocable proof how reducing 1% to the above equation will reduce global temperature They won't Because they can't! The onus of proof is on the accuser not the accused

The onus of proof is on the commercial profiteer as there exists the concept of duty of care in civilised society!