I can change your mind about climate

Agreed. But what astounds me is how many people actually think that a conspiracy containing more than half a dozen people would EVER work. And conspiracies like NWO and the "Great Global Warming Scam" rely on not half a dozen people but tens of thousands of people, across the globe, working not just to one goal but identifying with it so strongly that they would keep it secret from the rest of humanity

(waits for inevitable comparison to Nazi Germany)

 

Bill Clinton couldn't keep it a secret that he got his dick sucked and it had 2 people involved.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor

I might add it to my sig

 

I think when you awaken from your slumber you will indeed feel shock and awe.

 

I taped it but STILL haven't watched it. I think, though, because i'm over ignorant people debating it, i probably won't be able to watch it. I'll try.

Climate/energy is the current "bottleneck" issue. There will be a million other things before we get to the big one: population. Was population mentioned? I bet it wasn't. Talk about framing the debate. We could burn coal all day if there were only 1 billion people.

 

Cannot disagree with you there

But again it seems people are willing to move past the debate and just start fixing things - they would prefer not to have PAY for anything of course but that is simply human nature

 

Is there a utube of it?

 

Maybe iView has it (?).

 

cheers but i dont think it exists anymore.

 

This is part of the "New World Order" speech made by the first President Bush in 1991 & has been an open public objective so I do not know why people think it is a conspiracy. Most people, including myself, would not even disagree with whats in the text below.

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=new+world+order+bush+speech&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CEwQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.historyplace.com%2Fspeeches%2Fbush-war.htm&ei=0MK0T6mFHqfeigf9zZCuAw&usg=AFQjCNGTuXSpNt1w0gg6dw8NovFVBbEofQ

 

Just replace the coal fired power plants with Thorium reactors as the old power plants wear out. China is developing Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors that are claimed to be cheaper to run than coal fired power plants.Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactor www.liquidfluoridethoriumreactor.com/

For those people who take carbon dioxide seriously as a green house gas gas fired power stations are just a cop out no matter how efficient they are.

 

Conspiracy theories!!

 

I must ask, with all this. We have 2 sides to the debate, one claiming AGW and another opposing, Given that there is irrefutable evidence and the climate has been considerably warmer at times in the past. What has occurred, in the past, to turn the warming to cooling? If we are to believe Flannery, by the year 2040 we all will be living on scorched earth ( you know the clown that said the dams would never fill up again). However, nobody has made an explanation or hypothesis of how hot the atmosphere will become before something is triggered to turn the warming around. Now, you can not say that it will not happen, as it has happened many times in the past. perhaps a 2 degree rise will be enough to trigger such events off.

I really do begin to wonder about the scientific community, after sitting through hours discussing, BLACK HOLES, it occurred to me that there is no evidence of one existing. in fact, they have decided that through Einstein's advanced theory of relativity they are possible. According to the science in the field, because light, so far away, spirals and disappears suddenly, this is evidence of a black hole, "what else could it be?". So we have theories on how matter, light, time and gravity works within a black hole, but we have no proof of them even existing. Is this how science is to be carried out with everything?

So tell me, How has nature turned the switch from climate warming to climate cooling in the past? and how was it triggered?

 

Flannery is a sick joke, he said the dams would never fill up again & they did. Most of the climate change is just natural cycles but it is academic at this point as most of the fossil fuels are getting to expensive or environmentally damaging to extract & the replacements will not be net emitters of CO2.

 

What are these replacements that are not net emitters of CO2? Gas? fortunately for the world, Governments now see this as another revenue raising trick, Tax the air you breath and claim it is to stop climate change. Our dependence on fossil fuels have come from complacency, government and corporations have both been responsible for it over the years, and now that it is so entrenched into everything you do, they believe they can change nature. So according to all the Greenies out there, time is up for the big polluters, What do we replace it all with?

BTW, man is a net emitter of CO2.

 

Change my mind? No, you can't. It's my mind - stop meddling and get out of it.

 

Well, the show was interesting in terms of psychology I suppose. It was unsurprising that Minchin took the girl to see bloggers, a political hack and some unconventional closet physicist, and she took him to see Climate Scientists.

But it's good that there seems to be common ground. When pushed, Minchin is pro-renewable energy. I think everyone agrees that base load power from a free and infinite source is the ideal scenario, and an achievable one. It's just the amount of public money that should be spent on it that's contentious.

The thing that really needs to be understood though, is that carbon pricing doesn't assume that AGW will happen any more than an insurance premium assumes that your house will burn down. It just weighs up the probabilities based on all the differing views of scientists, and plays it safe for the future of the economy. It's not some doomsday scenario, it just looks at the likely affects according to the majority of scientists, which generally says stuff about decreases in crop yields, increases in major weather events, probably relocation of residents of some island nations, coastal erosion, and stuff like that. It's not like the world is going to implode.

And yes scientists tend to give a pretty wide range of possible outcomes and severity of AGW, perhaps it seems sensationalist because generally it's the worst case (albeit unlikely) scenario's that tend to get reported.

Much the same way people tend to claim "miracles" after the worst case scenario from a doctor didn't eventuate.

@Trinnity: Glad to see you're open minded.

 

The power plants being built by China are Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors (LFTR) & are good for providing base load power with no CO2 emissions & lower costs & electricity bills than building new coal fired power stations.http://www.liquidfluoridethoriumreactor.com/
LFTR reactors, solar & wind power are all suitable to power synthetic fuel plants designed to use carbon scrubbed from the atmosphere. Motor vehicles powered by this fuel will then have no net addition to atmospheric CO2.

BT

Man also emits methane (farts) which unlike CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas & there was talk a while back about taxing farmers for farts & I suppose they could do the same for humans. It would work like this - to buy food you will first have to buy a farts emission permit & when you get to the cash register the value of the permit will decrease according to each food item's level of risk for making you have a fart. For example baked beans 50 cents & yogurt with ABC cultures -10 cents from the permit value. To prevent tax evasion growing your own food would be made illegal without an additional permit & mandatory inspections that could include video surveillance of the vegie patch.

 

Oh! Please!!!

The amount of methane in human farts is minimal - the problem lies with cattle in particular

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/09/28/3023670.htm

Now Kangaroos do not produce methane - their guts grow a different bacteria and the clever boffins at CSIRO are looking at a way to alter the gut bacteria to reduce emissions - especially in sheep




But the whole "taxing the farts" thing is a clever deception to minimise the real issue

 

Ziggy are you saying that carbon pricing is based on a worst case hypothesis?

So are you admitting this is a ponzy scheme based on a lie?

How can you support a scheme that allows the biggest polluters in the world to pollute even more so long as they purchase carbon credits to ofset their carbon foot print.

This is no way to clean up the Earth from manmade pollution my friend.

Either your a bad greenie or a labor supporter with blinkers on, you know its bullsh!t yet you support it.

What a despicable approach to cleaning up manmade pollution.

 

Hey bowergirl haven't you heard of the most prominent green house gas on Earth?

Well just in case you haven't its WATER VAPOR and leaves the other trace gases behind for dead.

Water vapor is responsible for 95% of the greenhouse effect including greenhouse warming.

Pretty much every scientist agree with this, but some how in most of these computer models water vapor seems to be left out and all greenhouse warming seems to be blamed on CO2 which there just aint enough of in our atmosphere to drive greenhouse warming and a runaway green house effect and to a lesser extent methane.

I think if you want to talk about the reall issue as you put it then water vapor is your man.

 

You know - if you going to so vehemently against something it is wise to learn about it first

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1650825/Q&A--How-does-the-carbon-tax-work-

What it does not say is WHY an emissions scheme is BETTER

Okay - we all know that CO2 is absorbed by plants - and in particular trees and most importantly old growth forests. One fifth of CO2 rise is due to deforestation. At the moment there is no economic benefit though in keeping old growth forests and a lot of benefit in cutting them down - which is why Papua is worried - by 2020 they would have lost more than 50% of forests to logging. Carbon trading not only sets a price on pollution but encourages the big polluters to "offset" what they are doing by protecting these old growth forests. Australian farmers who have had restrictions put on them to stop cleaning land will now be paid to keep some forest at least on the property

 

Once it goes to an ETS do you really think bankers and wall street will really care about maintaining the forests on our planet?

Naive my dear, these guys are trying to take over the sovereignty of countries in other parts of the world, they dont care about the people how can you honestly believe they care about nature?

I for one dont believe these pr!cks have any good intentions about cleaning up manmade pollution, time will tell, and if we dont meet the required reduction we will have to hand over millions in finds to the United Nations.

I say they can go and get (*)(*)(*)(*)ed.

 

I dont think its a good idea to scrub the atmosphere and take CO2 out.

 

BTW bowergirl,

We are getting the most expensive carbon tax on planet Earth!

Why?

We only emit 1.5% of all manmade CO2 emissions, China and the US emit 25% and 20% respectively or thereabouts.

Why are we being given such a high price when we are at the lower end of the scale what will this do to our trade competitveness overseas and even for our tourist industry?

And btw the carbon tax will increase by 2.5% per year above inflation for the first three years.

So if inflation is 2.5% in the first year then after the first year the carbon tax will rise by 5% and so on and so forth.........

$23/tonne is a starting price thats starting.

When it becomes an ETS we will be handing over our sovereignty on using energy in our country to the United Nations, and yes it may start at $15/tonne thats MIGHT but it will keep on increasing there is no upper limit.

So how can Julia and Christine tell us they care about Australian families and then do this to us.

Whats wrong with direct action here in our country with no interference from foriegners.

We could become the cleanest polluters in the world, sure we may have to spend a few billion ONCE but we could retrofit our existing plants with the lastest technology in,

1. fabric filter bags
2. electrostatic precipitators
3. scrubbers
4. Carbon sequstration
5. gas fired power stations

Why do we have to send out billions of tax payer monies for eternity to overseas institutions.

The greens and the Julia GIllard Labor government are traitors and should be tried for treason.

They have no right to commit every man woman and child to financial slavery, they didn't even have the mandate to do this actually we were promised the opposite.

The worst government ever.