Most Aussies support Kyoto protocol

26 comments on “Most Aussies support Kyoto protocol ”

• Comments are now closed

1. out of bed 1

   11 March 2008 at 12:16 pm

   here is another site that will be very helpful
   http://www.greens.org.nz/
2. insider 2

   11 March 2008 at 12:32 pm

   What rubbish linking this summer to climate change. It is because we are in a La Nina event.

   The Aussies are great guzzlers of coal and gas. Wonder how this support will look when the CO2 bills start arriving
3. Steve Pierson 3

   11 March 2008 at 12:41 pm

   and if you meet any deniers here’s the scientists exploding the denier myths. http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg19426041.100
4. infused 4

   11 March 2008 at 4:32 pm

   Kyoto is stupid. Look where it has got us. And Steve, I could post a million links against what you posted as well. We’d be here all day going in circles.
5. Dale 5

   11 March 2008 at 4:58 pm

   Why dont you report what NEWA actually said.Ths warmest summer in 9 years is due to La Nina. This global warming is absolute nonsence. It suprises me how gullible some people can be. And the Aussies will be pretty pissed off when they discover how much money Kyoto will cost them.
6. Steve Pierson 6

   11 March 2008 at 5:22 pm

   Dale. http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg19426041.100

   infused. I thought you were smarter than that but sorry, I don’t bother engaging with deniers anymore, there’s so few of you left and your arguments are as bad as ever.
7. r0b 7

   11 March 2008 at 5:23 pm

   and if you meet any deniers here’s the scientists exploding the denier myths. http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg19426041.100

   And not two comments later – up pops Dale! Is it really nonsense Dale? Why?
8. Dale 8

   11 March 2008 at 5:58 pm

   Anyone would think Im denying the holocaust. There are two sides to the science. I find the more credible supports that the changes are natural occurences. The planet has warmed and cooled since its creation. Remember in the seventies some scientisits were predicting global cooling. Al Gores movie has also been proven in a English court to contain so many incorrect statements that it should not be showen to schools.If there is one thing possetive to come from this nonsence is that people might think about the amount of pollution we create. There is plenty of information supporting the fact that CO2 is not the cause of very slight variations in global tempretures.
9. Dale 9

   11 March 2008 at 6:13 pm

   Rob and Steve I have just read the link you posted. Yes it sounds convincing but for each claim it makes you can easily find counter claim. There is nothing wrong with reading both sides of the argument. So why dont you give it a go?
10. r0b 10

    11 March 2008 at 7:13 pm

    Dale: Anyone would think Im denying the holocaust

    Woh! – Over sensitive? All I said was “Is it really nonsense Dale? Why?”. How do you get from there to the holocaust?

    Rob and Steve I have just read the link you posted.

    Hint for next time – read the source material before commenting.

    Yes it sounds convincing

    It certainly does. So does this one:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm

    and this one:

    http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=732

    and pretty much 98% percent of the scientific literature that you can read of this topic.

    There is nothing wrong with reading both sides of the argument. So why dont you give it a go?

    Oh please. Can I remind you how you entered this thread: “This global warming is absolute nonsence”. Pretty balanced stuff eh. Think before you post Dale.
11. Sam Dixon 11

    11 March 2008 at 7:48 pm

    I’ve read tons of denier literature, it’s all bollocks. I would presume Steve and r0b have also read both ‘sides’ (if a smattering of loons and scientists on oil company payrolls really counts as a side) because that’s how you come to a well-founded opinion.
12. Dale 12

    11 March 2008 at 7:52 pm

    Yep thats right Sam and the US bombed their own towers.
13. Billy 13

    11 March 2008 at 8:01 pm

    Yeah R0b, but I remember when the scientific community were unanimous that civilisation as we know it would end at midnight on 31 December 1999. Government Departments were established. Water and canned food were stored. Microwaves were upgraded. And it was the biggest hoax ever. My 1997 microwave still works fine.

    I expect global warming has occurred. Looking after the planet cannot be wrong. But I am sick of people in homespun jumpers telling me that the end is nigh for a variety of constantly changing reasons. And I will not shit on sawdust.
14. Chemist Peter 14

    11 March 2008 at 8:03 pm

    Well I am a loon as well as a scientist. Look at the Nasa GissTemp data, a slow but gradual cooling is occurring, not warming for the past 2year or so. Look at the Jan/Feb figures of 31 meaning 14.31 degrees. Coldest start to a new year for 18 years.

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt

    Real pathetic that since us ‘deniers’ are so wrong you use vile terms to describe us. Why be so indignant if denial is wrong wrt Climate Change and it was totally proven.
    The GW scam is another tool used by socialists to re distribute wealth.
    It was also warmer in the Medievil times as well.
15. Chemist Peter 15

    11 March 2008 at 8:12 pm

    Sam, what denier literture have you read and on what basis is it crap?
16. Dale 16

    11 March 2008 at 8:12 pm

    Also where is the proof that the planet has warmed since 1998. There is none because it has’nt.
17. Dale 17

    11 March 2008 at 8:16 pm

    Funny how my comments await “moderation” is this blog governed from North Korea?

    [lprent: You just happen to share a IP address range with some of our least favorite trolls. Sorry about the hassle. But you probably wouldn’t want to visit if they were here]
18. out of bed 18

    11 March 2008 at 8:25 pm

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/climateexperiment/
19. out of bed 19

    11 March 2008 at 8:31 pm

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm
20. AncientGeek 20

    11 March 2008 at 9:35 pm

    CP: I’m not a chemist in training – I’m a earth scientist in my training. So I’m restraining myself here simply because you are a dumb-arse chemist.

    Climate trends aren’t like looking at a chemical reactions. They don’t happen in less than a decade except at a local level or globally for volcano’s. Even those typically take multiple years to take effect across the globe if they manage to hit the stratosphere or troposphere.

    Of course climate changes over time. Volcanic eruptions change it, changes in sea currents change it, solar cycles change it, ice shelfs breaking off and melting changes it, and finally and least you blowing hot air probably changes it. That has never been at issue.

    What matters is decade long changes in the sea and atmospheric systems, not what happens in a couple of years. In this case you are describing patterns from the well described el nino and related effects from sea current changes. Has a known cycle, and this year and next year are at their peak.

    In the log-term trend. There has been close to a doubling of CO2 in the last 100 years. Most of that comes from fossil fuels – easy to see by looking at carbon isotope levels. The oceans and biomass have been partially buffering. Various gases and particulate matter cause increased entropy in light energy towards IR. So the long term trend worldwide is for steadily rising temperature levels. Again the temperature levels are buffered mainly by oceans, ensuring long-term release.

    But the buffering isn’t sufficient to remove the full effect, so we’re likely to get significant effects within my remaining lifetime.

    The IPCC estimates are unlikely to happen – they are just too conservative. The effects will be sooner and bigger than they publish. That is the opinion of every active person in the area.

    So as you state

    Well I am a loon as well as a scientist.

    I’d suggest that in this area you are a loon. Please go and read the material, take a crash course in earth sciences, and learn about the science before you start talking about “2 year” period as being anything significant.
21. AncientGeek 21

    11 March 2008 at 9:47 pm

    Billy:

    I expect global warming has occurred. Looking after the planet cannot be wrong. But I am sick of people in homespun jumpers telling me that the end is nigh for a variety of constantly changing reasons. And I will not shit on sawdust.

    Overall I agree with that statement – well apart from not understanding the sawdust angle.

    Global warming has occoured. It is too late to really stop the effects. What we are looking at now is what the on-going effects are for the next thousand years. The key to that is to stop increasing the rate of increase and eventually even figuring out how to drop the levels. It is a long-term project, and I detest having it as a fashion item in any decade. But it does have to be done.

    At the current rate of increase, I’d expect people to have problems with breathing reflexes in the next 50 years (triggered by CO2). I’d expect widespread inundations in the next 25-30.

    But that isn’t all. Why that period – a thousand years? Because that is how about the longest period that it takes the oceans to churn through the deep currents moving from the poles to the equator. For most of the last couple of centuries we’ve been feeding additional CO2 and heat into those currents. Eventually it will either release or prevent additional buffering.

    It is a hell of price to expect your descendants to pay so you can have a SUV.
22. Chemist Peter 22

    11 March 2008 at 10:32 pm

    Ancient – doubling of CO2 in 100 years, no where near it shithead, approx 50%, 270ppm-390ppm. You are a dumb-ass rock fucker, must have a scabby cock now, put it into HCl, will get rid of the scabs and stop you multiplying.
    Also it is not any warmer than 10 yers ago, it has cooled since 1998 if you want a 10 year trend, pity it co-incides with the 1998 El Nino. Look at temps in the 2000s, no real warming, pretty much flat lined.
    Why was there a dip in temps from 1940-1970 with higher CO2?
    You lefties are real gullible, Gorebull warming, yeah right.
23. AncientGeek 23

    11 March 2008 at 11:07 pm

    CP:

    doubling of CO2 in 100 years, no where near it shithead, approx 50%, 270ppm-390ppm.

    Yes – but how much has the CO2 in the oceans increased over the same period. It is just another part of the volatiles, running in a long-term equilibrium with the atmosphere.

    There has between 500 and 600ppm added from known fossil fuel release over the last 107 years (we’ll ignore the 19th century). The oceans appear to have buffered something like 160-200ppm as shown in the acidity level increases. The variance depends on whose volume levels you believe, and the ongoing discussion about bottom level currents CO2 takeup. Eventually that will return to the atmosphere, and bearing in mind the levels of carbonates at the seafloor and the effect of acidity on it, I’d bet that you’re going to get another release of fossiled CO2 as well.

    Why was there a dip in temps from 1940-1970 with higher CO2?

    Exactly which regions are you talking about. I’m aware oif the ill-informed tendencies to regard the europe and the US as being thw whole of the world.. but…

    Yes in Europe and NE US. Disappeared after they reduced the particulate matter they were blowing out of the smokestacks. That reduced the higher atmosphere scattering that was cause upper but not lower level heating. Now if you care to look at the upper atmosphere in those areas you’ll find upwards temperature trend during the same period.

    If you look at the rather spotty data worldwide for the mid-20th, and in particular in the polar areas (which are least populated and polluted and most sensitive to temperatures) you find a continuous rise in temperature after the 50’s when they started to get good records. Look at the antarctic data from the IPY in 57 onwards in the NZ geological survey data for instance.

    BTW: If you want to pull mantle of science over you opinions – then expect to get challenges. Normally it is called peer review, however in this case it is simple annoyance because you haven’t bothered to look at the science.
24. AncientGeek 24

    11 March 2008 at 11:10 pm

    Ok – bit much wine..

    That reduced the lower atmosphere scattering, but that caused upper level heating but not lower level heating.
25. r0b 25

    12 March 2008 at 12:23 am

    CP, you keep trotting out invalid arguments. Clearly you haven’t read even the basics, where they are refuted:

    http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/mg19426041.100

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm

    You may also have missed this recent international report:

    http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/science/topics/globalwarming/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier

    On Feb. 2, 2007, the United Nations scientific panel studying climate change declared that the evidence of a warming trend is “unequivocal,” and that human activity has “very likely” been the driving force in that change over the last 50 years. The last report by the group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, in 2001, had found that humanity had “likely” played a role.

    The addition of that single word “very” did more than reflect mounting scientific evidence that the release of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases from smokestacks, tailpipes and burning forests has played a central role in raising the average surface temperature of the earth by more than 1 degree Fahrenheit since 1900. It also added new momentum to a debate that now seems centered less over whether humans are warming the planet, but instead over what to do about it.

    Governments all over the world (and many individual states in America) are taking action to combat climate change. Are they all fools? Are they all bewitched by Al Gore? No CP, it’s just that they can all read the evidence which you deny.

    In other news, Arctic ice has retreated so much that new shipping lanes have opened up, and there are looming international debates over newly accessible mineral, oil and fishing rights. Why is the ice melting CP?

    http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/10/science/10arctic.html
    http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/arctic.html

    As well as Arctic (and Antarctic) ice melt, glaciers (one of the most sensitive indicators of global warming) are receding world wide – see dramatic images here:

    http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glaciers.html

    There are plenty of other pictures on that site, CP, if you find all the long words on this subject too bothersome.

    Wake up CP. This isn’t about our petty political squabbles. This is about how liveable our planet is going to be in the years ahead…
26. Steve Pierson 26

    12 March 2008 at 2:50 pm

    dale. Why would anyone who’s not a climate change denier also be a believer in weird 9/11 conspriarcy theories?

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS