Science/Environment The Carbon Debate, pt III

Remove this Banner Ad

With the US and China reaching an agreement on carbon reduction targets there sure are a whole lot more people for you to make disparaging comments about. Who wud of thunk the USA wood be commie greens? I guess that is what comes of electing (twice) a black president.

Or, to quote a line from Bob Dylan "Something is happening but you don't know what it is, do you PR"?

windhover, I think you might misunderstand my position.

I am and always have been about reducing pollution, which includes but not limited to CO2. where I differ from some, is I believe in positive policy rather than negative policy which slows down investment, creativity and change.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Mar 17, 2009
21,636
17,319
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
windhover, I think you might misunderstand my position.

I am and always have been about reducing pollution, which includes but not limited to CO2. where I differ from some, is I believe in positive policy rather than negative policy which slows down investment, creativity and change.

So you are in favour of the positive change to the newer technologies in non polluting renewable power generation systems.
 
So you are in favour of the positive change to the newer technologies in non polluting renewable power generation systems.

Yes

But I want the change to be driven by logic , strategy, sustainability and economics rationale rather than emotional charged Pom Pom waving reactions that shut down industry.

I have even disclosed making investments in these areas in Australia and overseas including geothermal and wave power. We are currently tendering for solar in Botswana.

So not only do I support the change, I put my money where my mouth is. Unfortunately some others Pom Pom wave but aren't prepared to take on the risk that comes with their view.
 
Um what? These fuels have received massive government subsidies and tax breaks in the US and the UK.

Plus we seem to fight a war every few years to maintain cheaper supply of one of them.

I am not here to defend subsidies especially for fuels but do you have any information re the amount of those subsidies net of fuel taxes?

I think just looking at one side of the equation is not accurate of the whole picture.
 

Long Live HFC

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 30, 2010
5,545
4,362
AFL Club
Hawthorn
So not only do I support the change, I put my money where my mouth is. Unfortunately some others Pom Pom wave but aren't prepared to take on the risk that comes with their view.

that's a really ******* stupid opinion. oh I have an opinion about X, therefore I need to invest in/around X :rolleyes:
 
that's a really ******* stupid opinion. oh I have an opinion about X, therefore I need to invest in/around X :rolleyes:

Unless you are getting involved with positive change you are simply a pom pom waver or worse involved in negative change and then you are a vandal.

You can get involved by investing or rolling up your sleeves and working on the issue.
 

Long Live HFC

Norm Smith Medallist
Oct 30, 2010
5,545
4,362
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Unless you are getting involved with positive change you are simply a pom pom waver or worse involved in negative change and then you are a vandal.

You can get involved by investing or rolling up your sleeves and working on the issue.

as I said, ******* stupid.

I oppose assad's regime, therefore I should join ISIS.
I disagree with Japan's whaling, I should invest in greenpeace.
don't like tony abbott? become an ALP member!

lol.
 

Windhover

Premiership Player
Mar 16, 2010
3,470
2,862
Ruffy
AFL Club
Carlton
windhover, I think you might misunderstand my position.

No PR, it is not I who misunderstands your "position". Your "position" is so confused and self-contradictory it is plain you are in a muddle of misunderstanding. Of course, you being in such a muddle I do not expect you to be able to see it yourself. It is much easier from outside.

But if you want any clues to help you out (I am doubtful whether you have the motivation and dubious as to your capacity but, hey, I am a half-glass full type) keep reading.

I am and always have been about reducing pollution, which includes but not limited to CO2. where I differ from some, is I believe in positive policy rather than negative policy which slows down investment, creativity and change.
From this you expressly state:

1. CO2 is a pollutant. (This statement is derived from your admission that pollution "includes but not limited to CO2")
2. You are keen on reducing CO2. (This statement is derived from your claim that you have always "been about reducing pollution")

Now let's have a look at your earlier post to which I had replied:
[I can't answer for Lebbo but I too sit in the camp that we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas but I don't believe we fully understand its effect given the other variables (a minor issue for me) but I truly don't believe warming is as big an issue as made out to be (thus my disparaging comments re alarmists and watermelons).]

From this you expressly state:
1. CO2 has a warming effect on the planet. (This statement is derived from your claimed shared "knowledge" that C02 is a greenhouse gas. For the record, I claim no such "knowledge". I am far too scientifically ignorant to truly know any such thing and would be in awe of you if I believed for a millisecond you had any true knowledge on the subject. But this not unimportant quibble to one side, I am unhappily drawn to the conclusion that I ought to accept the science on the subject.)
2. The effect of CO2 warming is sufficiently scientifically unknown to require any significant action to reduce C02 levels. (This statement is derived from your claimed "belief" that we don't "fully understand its effect given the other variables".)
3. Your lack of belief that there is a sufficient understanding of the full effects of C02 as a pollutant gives you licence to disparage others as alarmists and watermelons who would be keen on reducing C02. (This statement is derived from you posing "thus my disparaging comments re alarmists and watermelons". (Emphasis added).

Your statement that "you are keen on reducing C02 stands in rather stark contrast to your statement that you would disparage those who are keen on reducing C02, presumably including yourself.

Finally:
1. If we accept the science that says C02 is a pollutant (i.e. a harmful substance) that is changing by warming the planetary environment we require to exist; and
2. If we accept that the consequences of this warming effect are not fully understood (and in this I agree with you, the effects will never be fully known); then
3. This is a call for superabundant caution, not foolhardy recklessness.

After all if human faeces is a pollutant its harmful effects have a very short half-life and no significant impact on more than a very localised region. I understand you to have "always been about" reducing such pollution. Science is telling us that the half-life for the polluting effects of C02 is measured in 1000s of years and, if it has a warming effect its impact must be planetary. Surely the responsible position to take is: If we knew the full effects of the warming maybe we would be perfectly happy living in a planet that was a couple of degrees warmer. But since we do not know what the full effects of the warming will be (and some boof-headed scientists are predicting all sorts of unpleasantness - no doubt to gain funds for their outlandish projects) surely those boof-heads have us over a barrel. Just because those boof-headed so called scientists are alarming watermelons doesn't mean they are wrong. And we cannot afford to assume they are wrong because of the risk to us if they just happen to be right. That would make us real boof-heads, wouldn't it?
 
No PR, it is not I who misunderstands your "position". Your "position" is so confused and self-contradictory it is plain you are in a muddle of misunderstanding. Of course, you being in such a muddle I do not expect you to be able to see it yourself. It is much easier from outside.

But if you want any clues to help you out (I am doubtful whether you have the motivation and dubious as to your capacity but, hey, I am a half-glass full type) keep reading.


From this you expressly state:

1. CO2 is a pollutant. (This statement is derived from your admission that pollution "includes but not limited to CO2")
2. You are keen on reducing CO2. (This statement is derived from your claim that you have always "been about reducing pollution")

Now let's have a look at your earlier post to which I had replied:
[I can't answer for Lebbo but I too sit in the camp that we know CO2 is a greenhouse gas but I don't believe we fully understand its effect given the other variables (a minor issue for me) but I truly don't believe warming is as big an issue as made out to be (thus my disparaging comments re alarmists and watermelons).]

From this you expressly state:
1. CO2 has a warming effect on the planet. (This statement is derived from your claimed shared "knowledge" that C02 is a greenhouse gas. For the record, I claim no such "knowledge". I am far too scientifically ignorant to truly know any such thing and would be in awe of you if I believed for a millisecond you had any true knowledge on the subject. But this not unimportant quibble to one side, I am unhappily drawn to the conclusion that I ought to accept the science on the subject.)
2. The effect of CO2 warming is sufficiently scientifically unknown to require any significant action to reduce C02 levels. (This statement is derived from your claimed "belief" that we don't "fully understand its effect given the other variables".)
3. Your lack of belief that there is a sufficient understanding of the full effects of C02 as a pollutant gives you licence to disparage others as alarmists and watermelons who would be keen on reducing C02. (This statement is derived from you posing "thus my disparaging comments re alarmists and watermelons". (Emphasis added).

Your statement that "you are keen on reducing C02 stands in rather stark contrast to your statement that you would disparage those who are keen on reducing C02, presumably including yourself.

Finally:
1. If we accept the science that says C02 is a pollutant (i.e. a harmful substance) that is changing by warming the planetary environment we require to exist; and
2. If we accept that the consequences of this warming effect are not fully understood (and in this I agree with you, the effects will never be fully known); then
3. This is a call for superabundant caution, not foolhardy recklessness.

After all if human faeces is a pollutant its harmful effects have a very short half-life and no significant impact on more than a very localised region. I understand you to have "always been about" reducing such pollution. Science is telling us that the half-life for the polluting effects of C02 is measured in 1000s of years and, if it has a warming effect its impact must be planetary. Surely the responsible position to take is: If we knew the full effects of the warming maybe we would be perfectly happy living in a planet that was a couple of degrees warmer. But since we do not know what the full effects of the warming will be (and some boof-headed scientists are predicting all sorts of unpleasantness - no doubt to gain funds for their outlandish projects) surely those boof-heads have us over a barrel. Just because those boof-headed so called scientists are alarming watermelons doesn't mean they are wrong. And we cannot afford to assume they are wrong because of the risk to us if they just happen to be right. That would make us real boof-heads, wouldn't it?

such a big post for which most is extrapolated opinion and so far off the mark.

quite simply, you are wrong.

would you like to try again and keep to the facts?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Oct 4, 2005
3,191
2,899
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Tampa Bay Lightning
Calling CO2 a pollutant is always dangerous. We're not polluting the world by breathing. (Though some people are wasting their time stopping cows farting methane...)

However, people have been told that increases in CO2 in the atmosphere can have a negative effect, and we see ads and tv shows counting balloons of gas, so we get the idea it is some form of pollutant.

It isn't. CO2 is meant to be there. It is part of the cycle of living (and some non-living) systems on this planet. The thing is that these systems have found a balance over millions of years and the CO2 we are adding to the system by burning fossil fuels and (and as a result of clearing land) is destroying this balance.

This not only causes extremes because a change in the systems results in things settling in a different place, for example the weird standing wave patterns over North America that freeze the east and boil the west one year then do the opposite the next, but it changes the planet from the conditions life evolved to live in. This is why climate change is a good word for it. Obviously much of the change is due to trapping more heat because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but what we're discussing here isn't some linear thing. It's strange chaotic results of a change to a system we struggle to predict a 7 day forecast from.

I don't think anyone would care if it is 22 instead of 20 tomorrow, I'd have no fear of that at all. It's the stranger effects that are scary, extreme weather, oceans taking up more CO2 and killing off marine life, changes in eco systems, sea levels, etc. Like what happen when a place that has evolved as a hot climate suddenly becomes cold or vice versa? None of the plants or animals there are adapted for it.
 
Calling CO2 a pollutant is always dangerous. We're not polluting the world by breathing. (Though some people are wasting their time stopping cows farting methane...)

However, people have been told that increases in CO2 in the atmosphere can have a negative effect, and we see ads and tv shows counting balloons of gas, so we get the idea it is some form of pollutant.

It isn't. CO2 is meant to be there. It is part of the cycle of living (and some non-living) systems on this planet. The thing is that these systems have found a balance over millions of years and the CO2 we are adding to the system by burning fossil fuels and (and as a result of clearing land) is destroying this balance.

This not only causes extremes because a change in the systems results in things settling in a different place, for example the weird standing wave patterns over North America that freeze the east and boil the west one year then do the opposite the next, but it changes the planet from the conditions life evolved to live in. This is why climate change is a good word for it. Obviously much of the change is due to trapping more heat because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but what we're discussing here isn't some linear thing. It's strange chaotic results of a change to a system we struggle to predict a 7 day forecast from.

I don't think anyone would care if it is 22 instead of 20 tomorrow, I'd have no fear of that at all. It's the stranger effects that are scary, extreme weather, oceans taking up more CO2 and killing off marine life, changes in eco systems, sea levels, etc. Like what happen when a place that has evolved as a hot climate suddenly becomes cold or vice versa? None of the plants or animals there are adapted for it.

I agree. People on the "green" bandwagon tend to try to lump all environmental issues together as a great evil affront to the green god. Smoke from woodfires or coal might be horrible and may have health issues, but it is a totally different subject. Methane is as big an issue as CO2, but since it has a shorter atmospheric life its probably considered something to attack further down the track.
 
Oct 4, 2005
3,191
2,899
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Tampa Bay Lightning
I agree. People on the "green" bandwagon tend to try to lump all environmental issues together as a great evil affront to the green god. Smoke from woodfires or coal might be horrible and may have health issues, but it is a totally different subject. Methane is as big an issue as CO2, but since it has a shorter atmospheric life its probably considered something to attack further down the track.

Also methane (at least from animals) is coming from digesting plants which get carbon from absorbing CO2 and/or digesting animals which get carbon from eating plants which absorbed CO2.

Not sure whether once the shorter atmospheric life of methane is considered this process makes the greenhouse effect less by trapping some CO2 and converting some to methane, but guessing even if the great greenhouse effect of the methane wins out, it would be pretty insignificant compared to other causes of climate change.

I think most of the greenhouse gas problems from farming might be from land clearing and transport of feed and produce.

It's funny how two things like coal and wood smoke that would look similar to the public as pollutants can have such a different effect in that coal is a serious climate change problem, wood smoke is just bad air quality and your lungs. How do you show that by just showing "evil smoke"? :)
 

little graham

Brownlow Medallist
10k Posts
Sep 18, 2013
17,752
11,820
AFL Club
Adelaide
10372194_773478979354230_5948520869127448563_n.png


This guy is a dickhead. Although he's right, he's a hypocrite. His carbon footprint and economic vandalism to feed his ego would be near on unrivalled.
 
Also methane (at least from animals) is coming from digesting plants which get carbon from absorbing CO2 and/or digesting animals which get carbon from eating plants which absorbed CO2.

Not sure whether once the shorter atmospheric life of methane is considered this process makes the greenhouse effect less by trapping some CO2 and converting some to methane, but guessing even if the great greenhouse effect of the methane wins out, it would be pretty insignificant compared to other causes of climate change.

I think most of the greenhouse gas problems from farming might be from land clearing and transport of feed and produce.

It's funny how two things like coal and wood smoke that would look similar to the public as pollutants can have such a different effect in that coal is a serious climate change problem, wood smoke is just bad air quality and your lungs. How do you show that by just showing "evil smoke"? :)

Coal emission can have all sorts of chemicals in it. But the result of the cleanest combustion is CO2.
If you burn a "pure hydrocarbon" completely you go from Hydrogen and Carbon ( in whatever molecules ) add oxygen and get H2O and CO2.
Impurities mean that you get all sorts of nasty Nitrous oxides and the likes, but because most of the particulates have been getting precipitated out for years now, the media usually show pictures of the steam coming off the water cooling towers to get that proper polluting look. In this photo you can't see any actual pollutants, and of course carbon dioxide is invisible.

265310-130404-yallourn-power-station.jpg






Here is a picture of Hazelwood from the greenpeace web site.
This must be the worst ever picture of hazelwood, because the exact same shot has been used by the ABC and News.com.au

I've driven past this thing hundreds of times and never seen it looking like this. Its either a long long time ago, ( early 70s ) or its during unique atmospheric conditions. Either way the smoke that Greenpeace are showing us is totally irrelevant.
By trying to appeal to ignorant people on an emotional level they discredit themselves on an intellectual level.

hazelwood-coal-power-station-i.jpg
 
Oct 4, 2005
3,191
2,899
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Tampa Bay Lightning
We do, especially those interested in the future. That guy and his galactic airways aint.

Global warming and the environment isn't our only future issue. Earth currently has many times its sustainable population and the population is only going to grow and get worse.

As pie in the sky as space travel is, expansion beyond Earth is a far nicer solution to the overpopulation problem than having war, starvation or disease cull us back periodically.
 
Global warming and the environment isn't our only future issue. Earth currently has many times its sustainable population and the population is only going to grow and get worse.

As pie in the sky as space travel is, expansion beyond Earth is a far nicer solution to the overpopulation problem than having war, starvation or disease cull us back periodically.

Not sure that a guided tour into suborbital space is the solution.
 
Oct 4, 2005
3,191
2,899
Melbourne
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Tampa Bay Lightning
Not sure that a guided tour into suborbital space is the solution.

Private investment in space travel has to start somewhere. SpaceX are probably more ambitious, but Virgin Galactic is still part of it.

If Virgin Galactic's suborbital flights get cheaper, more people will go, and hopefully more people will be inspired to try bigger things in space. Maybe they'll provide orbital flights or moon flights next.

It's not like the Wright brothers built their first plane and started flying people across the Atlantic straight away.
 
Private investment in space travel has to start somewhere. SpaceX are probably more ambitious, but Virgin Galactic is still part of it.

If Virgin Galactic's suborbital flights get cheaper, more people will go, and hopefully more people will be inspired to try bigger things in space. Maybe they'll provide orbital flights or moon flights next.

It's not like the Wright brothers built their first plane and started flying people across the Atlantic straight away.
That's a poor analogy though. Space travel doesn't need incremental development, it needs new technology to allow us to go really really fast
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back