Backyard Aquaponics
A place to discuss aquaponics

Watch the proposed ad Climate Change Ad

The only thing that drives me crazy about those ads is the fact the government has caved into enviromental pressure groups.

yes the climate is changing. no the sky is not going to fall on our heads and the universe implode as some would have you believe.

Timmy are you realy 26?

yep why's that?

It is likely that by the time you are 70 the coast of our city will have no beaches. and those of Mandurah will have at times, submerged house.

The fact that sea levels rise and fall is inevitable. rising a meter in 50 years though? won't happen.
There's a ton of holes in global warming theory, such as the fact C02 isn't a significant green house gas. C02 doesn't work anything like the greenhouse analogy that's shown over and over again. it's water vapour that does the reflecting.
C02 does trap certain radiation wave lenghts from the sun and add heat in that manner but just from the top of my head without double checking i seem to have the figure of 1 degree as the total extra effect this has.

It makes me laugh a bit when people reffer to things like nuclear as "green house gas free" when infact the steam they release is THE green house gas (admittedly it can be trapped and recycled).

I'm not at all against alternative energy's and saving power - it's a great idea and saves money. it does however have to make economic sense, because bad policy based on 1/2 truths will create problems that are far worse then rising sea levels and be an even more immediate threat.

So Timmy, are you suggested that there isn't a reason for concern and/or that we shouldn't take any form of action??

Secondly the purpose of the ad was to raise not only the general awareness of the issue, but specifically to counteract the governments attempt to spin and trivialise, (via taxpayers money), the issue.

It would seem perhaps that while the ad may be too late in some cases it is so obviously needed.

I think there is need for research. There's a ton of misinformation on this subject. another good example is the media's constantly suggesting wild weather is due to global warming. This simply isn't true, and the basics of this are taught in high school science. Weather is driven by different temperature air masses meeting. If the world really were to get warmer and the poles melted, you would end up with LESS of a temp. difference between your major air masses and milder weather. While this isn't a positive thing in itself, it does show that the idea global warming will turn the world into a bad hollywood movie is crap.

I say be skeptical of factions attempting to ram through social changes, waving the global warming flag.

typically these people aren't really concerned with the environment at all but have a anti-corperate agenda hidden away.

Can't say that I agree with you there Timmy.....

It is currently the major corporations both here in Australia and worldwide that are in fact driving the global warming/climate change discussion

The rest of the conservationist, scientists etc might ( at a long stretch) have some corporate interest, but sure as heck aren't going to make any money from arguing climate change is here and requires action.

I think we had this discussion before....

http://backyardaquaponics.com/forum/vie ... php?t=1798

I think we came to the conclusion that even though it would seem man produces very little greenhouse gas/pollution in the great scheme of things, but it is enough to tip the balance and put us into a downward spiral.

I agree with you that the sea levels won't rise as drastically as it has been hyped up, but with all the CO2, water vapour, and other gases we are releasing into the atmosphere can't be a good thing. You have to agree the weather is changing, there is more illness, major cities are polluted with smog. Just think in 50 years what your grandchildren would be living in if we did nothing.

[quote="RupertofOZ"][quote] but have a anti-corperate agenda hidden away. [/quote]

Can't say that I agree with you there Timmy.....

It is currently the major corporations both here in Australia and worldwide that are in fact driving the global warming/climate change discussion

The rest of the conservationist, scientists etc might ( at a long stretch) have some corporate interest, but sure as heck aren't going to make any money from arguing climate change is here and requires action.[/quote]

Actually, it might sound very cynical but it is very true - If your a research scientist and want to get money, all you need do these days is make some link between your proposal and global warming to greatly improve your chances of being successful.

I don't think money is the driving force for activitist groups though. I think it's this idea that utilising the earths resources is some how "evil", and that corperations are evil for doing so.

People get great satisfaction out of feeling like they are fighting the bad guys, and you only need to witness the rabid anti globalisation groups to see that facts and reasoning don't come into it.

If business is driving the discussion on global warming, it's in defence from attacks from these groups.

No one knows what the outcome will be from our excessive use of fossil fuels, extensive forest clearing, etc. But most scientists around the world agree that there are going to be some changes to global climate patterns, it's inevitable..

No they don't know what will happen exactly, they can only produce models to gain insights as to what may happen.. No one has a crystal ball and can tell exactly what will happen..

But is it worth the risk of tipping things too far???

This is another area where people/politicians/activists/corporations etc need to stop playing the blame-game and just get on with sorting out the problem. At this point in time there is no need or purpose in blaming any one cause (not that I think there is one specific cause) but more need to try to fix the problems.

("I can do that" may be a political spin campaign, but every little bit helps )

Historical stuff the Aussies (and many Americans, but not in this group ) may not be aware of...

Back when the US was founded we had the Articles of Confederation as the governing documents of the land. After a decade or so, it was realized that these laws provided for a central government that was too weak. It wasn't strong enough to ensure defensible borders against the English, French, Spanish, and natives. So a bunch of really smart guys got together to overthrow the government and came up with our brand spanking new constitution.

Which was great. Personally, I think it's one of the most important documents of the past thousand years or so. BUT! Americans at the time pretty much things are fine as they are, so thanks but no thanks. And so the propaganda in support of the Constitution was initiated via the Federalist Papers, which appeared as anonymous articles in newspapers.

Why is this relevant? The thing that makes me sad is that the authors of the Federalist Papers wrote in a style that assumed the common man was an intelligent man capable of reasoned reflection on complex issues. This is the complete opposite of today's soundbite culture *especially* in the global warming arena.

New York to Sink Like Atlantis!

What kind of crap is that? There's so much deliberate misinformation out there that it's hard for a reasoning audience (me) to have any idea of what is true, and I'm too lazy to go check original sources because I don't care enough.

Most people agree that the earth has gotten warmer over that past 100 years. There are all kinds of differences though when you get into the specifics. On the one extreme you have the Noah's flood people. On the other you have people that point out that the major portion of the past century's increase occurred between 1900 and 1960, which was before the major industrialization of the West as we know it now. There is another argument that I've heard that claims that a huge number of weather monitoring stations in the former Soviet Union and related countries went offline in the 90's, which skews the average higher as these locations were typically in colder regions.

Frankly, I find the people on the latter extreme more sensible.

Here's what I do know: The weather and thus the climate are a chaotic system that even IF fully understood (it isn't), due to the nature of chaotic systems would diverge exponentially from predictions based on initial parameter discrepancies.

Here's what I think: We are in a long term warming trend from the Little Ice Age of the Middle Ages. And that this is a good thing for the most part. It tend to mean more habitable regions and higher food productivity for much of the world. I also think that we should take efforts to produce a high standard of living in a sustainable way as far as is possible. Earth and the rest of the solar system will continue in its cycles with time scales that escape us, but there's no sense in a rape and pillage kind of mindset (at least until we are a multi-planetary species ).

/rant

There is certanly an element of risk involved.

But look at what some people suggest, for example making power a LOT more expensive. I think that idea carries far more risk then just using the oil and coal.

If we were to do that and tip the economy of the world into a resession it would most likely end up being counter productive.
poor economic conditions would mean the capital required to build cleaner factories wouldn't be there, and we would be forced to stick with older more polluting technology.
poor economic's would also lead to less funding for non esstentials like renewable fuel research.
These things become even more important for developing countries.

It would be like winning a battle only to lose the war. So whatever is done, i just hope caution isn't thrown to the wind in the name of stopping the global warming boogey man.