![]() |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by elfman
(Post 8317577)
sounds like you fell for a bit of hype there - Latrobe valley resources could more likely meet local power station needs for 500 years, not the entire world. :lol:
and yes I suppose you could say that some lignite is just sitting there - but overall the brown coal in the valley is still being mined at a rate of more than 60 million tonnes per year. http://www.australianminesatlas.gov....wn_coal_09.jsp |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by slapphead_otool
(Post 8317451)
Sadly, human nature says you are right..... :ohmy:
However, tonights news says "a blizzard battered the Mid-Atlantic region of the United States on Saturday, quickly dumping large amounts of snow that piled up on roadways and toppled trees onto apartment buildings and cars. Officials urged people to huddle at home for the weekend, out of the way of crews trying to keep up with a storm that forecasters said could be the biggest for Washington, DC, in modern history." |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by NedKelly
(Post 8316491)
Thanks for the heads up. It was a very interesting lecture. He should have won an oscar. If anyone believes in AGW after watching that they have rocks in their head.
|
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by iolande
(Post 8318260)
I'd agree with you - it was a story that he told well. And his audience loved it. Shame he didn't tell the truth . . .
He basically a political lobbyist, not a scientist. |
Re: Global warming
In 1992 the US Environmental Protection Agency issued a report called Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking.
This concerned the world's biggest tobacco firm, Philip Morris who engaged a PR company called APCO to deal with the matter. Ellen Merlo, Philip Morris' chief executive officer and president stated her intentions as: "Our over-riding objective is to discredit the EPA report . . . our objective to prevent state and cities, as well as businesses, from passive-smoking bans APCO proposed the creation of "a national coalition that would educate the media, public officials and teh public about the dangers of 'junk science'. Coalition will address credibility of government's scientific studies, risk assessment techniques and misuse of tax dollars" The upshot of this is they set up The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC). To ensure that this group wasn't seen by the public as an obvious pro-tobacco organisation, they proposed a number of things
For the third point, they contacted Exxon, who were getting concerned about Global warming and the increase in attention climate change was getting. TASCC or Exxon, directly fund such persons as Steve Milloy of www.junkscience.com and CSRwatch.com. Milloy also owns the Free Enterprise Education Insitute and the Free Enterprise Action Group. Another key recipient of money is the George C Marshall Institute. all paraphrased from Heat |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Lord_Farquar
(Post 8318293)
I don't understand why people take him seriously. This is the guy who thinks he won the Falklands war on his own and that people with aids should be isolated from the rest of society.
He basically a political lobbyist, not a scientist. completely forgetting that TB is a serious air-born infection, so isolation works. AIDS is a syndrome that is suffered by people with HIV. HIV needs a fairly high level of bodily fluids have to be exchanged before infection can take place. Therefore prophylactics are required rather than isolation (are you listening Ratzinger?) Remember the mosquito scare with HIV? And then it turns out that a mosquito cannot carry enough blood containing HIV to infect another person. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by iolande
(Post 8318322)
In 1992 the US Environmental Protection Agency issued a report called Respiratory Health Effects of Passive Smoking.
I feel its all a little academic anyway. Global consensus on the issue cannot be reached. Unilateral meaningful CO2 reductions by countries such as Australia is financial and, rapidly becoming, political suicide. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Lord_Farquar
(Post 8318293)
He basically a political lobbyist, not a scientist.
|
Re: Global warming
No one knows...only the Earth Knows.
|
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Centurion
(Post 8318342)
And that's the point. He can argue well and has brought a lot of attention onto the subject. Job well done for him, even if you don't support his views.
|
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by Lord_Farquar
(Post 8318348)
God help us.
|
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by iolande
(Post 8318240)
Remember there are short term peaks and troughs in global temperatures but a long term trend in Global Warming. So there will be downturns in the short run in temperature, but in the long run there is an increase in temperature. This is similar to the 'seas are cooling argument' you put forward earlier.
I fully agree with your comment about short term peaks and troughs in global temperatures, and of course the current snowstorms are an example of this. However, as I was trying to point out, the great unwashed public hears scientists telling them the world is warming, whilst once again they are warned to stay indoors because of snowstorms – this time the biggest on record for Washington DC. My point related to public perceptions and loss of confidence in AGW based upon their own observations. It is not scientific, however the public vote the governments into power. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by iolande
(Post 8318332)
And he compares AIDS suffers with TB sufferers, saying things like 'TB sufferers get isolated so AIDS should to'
completely forgetting that TB is a serious air-born infection, so isolation works. AIDS is a syndrome that is suffered by people with HIV. HIV needs a fairly high level of bodily fluids have to be exchanged before infection can take place. Therefore prophylactics are required rather than isolation (are you listening Ratzinger?) Remember the mosquito scare with HIV? And then it turns out that a mosquito cannot carry enough blood containing HIV to infect another person. |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by elfman
(Post 8317577)
sounds like you fell for a bit of hype there - Latrobe valley resources could more likely meet local power station needs for 500 years, not the entire world. :lol:
and yes I suppose you could say that some lignite is just sitting there - but overall the brown coal in the valley is still being mined at a rate of more than 60 million tonnes per year. http://www.australianminesatlas.gov....wn_coal_09.jsp Recoverable economic demonstrated resources (EDR) for 2008 was 37.2 Gigatonne (Gt) The resource life of the accessible EDR of 32.2 Gt is about 490 years You may well be right, there may have been some hype, or maybe my memory fails –I did say it was from memory. :) Either way its a hell of a lot of energy sitting there, at a time when people keep saying non renewable energy will run out soon..... |
Re: Global warming
Originally Posted by iolande
(Post 8318214)
That would make sense. An economist working with climate scientists about the best way to use resources in order to ensure that the economy doesn't fail. No wonder the IPCC has such a reputation of being very conservative. If they removed the money men then they would probably make us cut carbon by the up to 90% some alarmists demand should have been done by last year.
Funny, one of my economics lecturers at uni specialised in fish and the worked with scientists on the best way of conserving the very depleted fish stocks we have in the world so that industry would survive and the people who relied on fish as their protein source could still be fed. An economist. Who would have thought it!!! My “Economist†comment was in response to the Pavlov dog like response from AGW proponents who reply whenever anyone who disagrees with AGW is quoted: “Ding†but s/he is not a climatologist is s/he? That argument doesn’t hold water when the head of the IPCC isn’t a climatologist either. I would also point out (as someone with a postgraduate diploma in economics) that economists tend to deal with abstract theories that never run to fruition, and cannot be tested. Even worse, many economic theories are diametrically opposed to each other. There is also an unfortunate close relationship between politics and economics. I remember arguing vehemently in class about the pitfalls of open trade barriers. My argument was based upon common sense, whereas the lecturer was more interested in politics. (this was the same reason I dropped out of my PhD) In my opinion economists couldn’t be trusted to measure the temperature of the Sunday roast in the oven. |
| All times are GMT -12. The time now is 12:15 am. |
Powered by vBulletin: ©2000 - 2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.