All three of the threads going on this topic have descended into name calling. As some one involved in research with a partner in medical research. One thing is very clear from what is quoted from articles on here, that there is a marked lack of understanding of what proper research, let alone good research actually is.
I'm curious, is anyone here actually engaged in research? I'm curious to know how many people here are arguing from a background in any form of hard research.
http://environmentalchemistry.com/yo...alwarming.html
Interesting article here on a website that is hard research based. Might want to have a squizz.
Carbon dioxide has taken center stage in the environmental arena in recent months. In August of 2003 the US Administration reversed the 1998 decision of the previous administration, which had classified carbon dioxide as a pollutant, and made it subject to the provisions of the Clean Air Act. As a result of the reversal of the 1998 decision, automobile manufacturers and power plants have been able to avoid making costly modifications that would have been required under the 1998 ruling. In 2006 environmental groups pushed for legislation that would reinstate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. In August of 2006 EPA General Counsel Robert Fabricant concluded that since the Clean Air Act does not specifically authorize regulation to address climate change, CO2 is not a pollutant (1).
Amazing how the US car industry totally crashed - and amazing how hard they then pleaded for govt handouts when the blinkered capitalist method failed .The reason given for not classifying CO2 as a pollutant is based upon the fact that it is a natural component of the atmosphere and needed by plants in order to carry out photosynthesis. No one would argue the fact that carbon dioxide is a necessary component of the atmosphere any more than one would argue the fact that Vitamin D is necessary in the human diet. However, excess Vitamin D in the diet can be extremely toxic (6).
...... When one substance is present in excess and as a result threatens the wellbeing of an ecosystem, it becomes toxic, and could be considered to be a pollutant, despite the fact that it is required in small quantities.
I wasn't aware of any major disagreement on where the co2 is coming from. (Except those on the fringes maybe) The discussion revolves around the effect.Thanks for the reference Vizion. Clean, clear, provable explanation of how the carbon cycle works.
Really hope it is read by other members of the forum as an agreed basis for where the extra CO2 in our atmosphere is coming from.
Cheers
:topicAmazing how the US car industry totally crashed - and amazing how hard they then pleaded for govt handouts when the blinkered capitalist method failed .
the psychology of greed and hypocrisy.
I am for supporting a risk-management approach to climate change,
Are there those on this forum that be believe Australia should do nothing?
Why do I think that these threads ,in general,follow one political line or the other.Probably because there seems to be a link between the Rudd-haters and those that oppose any strategy to reduce emissions.
Thankscomma is wrong - give this kid a fail ...
I must be mentally deficient so could you please explain this a bit more with some body in it?actually,
to suggest coral can sponsor fish will be an anachronism if we're not careful.
(bit like those around here who somehow link concern for the climate with socialism
Forums are great places to gain knowledge and communicate anonymously about stuff but gee, they can also induce tunnel vision by the looks of it.Here in Australia we should be taking precautions, adapting for predicted climate change, not wasting time and effort on paper and money shuffling (ETS). Then we should have a plan B (survival strategies for an ice age, if we got the warming thing wrong)
brty
A certain professors own scientific organisations view on the subject matter.
http://ametsoc.org/POLICY/2007climatechange.html
Final remarks
Despite the uncertainties noted above, there is adequate evidence from observations and interpretations of climate simulations to conclude that the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; that humans have significantly contributed to this change; and that further climate change will continue to have important impacts on human societies, on economies, on ecosystems, and on wildlife through the 21st century and beyond. Focusing on the next 30 years, convergence among emission scenarios and model results suggest strongly that increasing air temperatures will reduce snowpack, shift snowmelt timing, reduce crop production and rangeland fertility, and cause continued melting of the ice caps and sea level rise. Important goals for future work include the need to understand the relation of climate at the state and regional level to the patterns of global climate and to reverse the decline in observational networks that are so critical to accurate climate monitoring and prediction.
Policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of the impacts of climate change. Policy decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty. Some continued climate change is inevitable, and the policy debate should also consider the best ways to adapt to climate change. Prudence dictates extreme care in managing our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life.
Forums are great places to gain knowledge and communicate anonymously about stuff but gee, they can also induce tunnel vision by the looks of it.
If you believe that taxing emitters will reduce CO2 levels, I think you have been spun well and truely by Rudd and Wong.
If your concern is about reducing carbon levels, then lets start with planting 1Billion trees.
That creates jobs,saves jobs and the planet. Now isnt that a simple solution?
You seem to be having a political conversation with yourself-This issue is bigger than party politics .
calliope I have had hundreds of posts deleted on ASF - sometimes from simply giving a link to someone else's post - praps a moderator's - often in agreement with that post .
But if your post isn't deleted on purely "bad taste" grounds - and you continue to be the moderator's pet - then I for one can't see much point in sticking around.
cheers
Excellent article Vizion, I would expect most understand the rise in CO2 is most likely due to man-made factors. The question remains - what will be the likely effects on the global climate as a whole? I think the conclusion is where the most ability to scew the argument for action (or inaction) either way is teh crux of most people's concern.I'm curious, is anyone here actually engaged in research? I'm curious to know how many people here are arguing from a background in any form of hard research.
http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/200611CO2globalwarming.html
Interesting article here on a website that is hard research based. Might want to have a squizz.
Given that there is no actual cut to CO2 emissions actually proposed or even under consideration, you would logically have to believe that climate change does not exist, or at least is not caused by CO2, to argue that there is no need to adapt to a changing climate.Forums are great places to gain knowledge and communicate anonymously about stuff but gee, they can also induce tunnel vision by the looks of it.
Thank you for that succinct summary Smurf.Given that there is no actual cut to CO2 emissions actually proposed or even under consideration, you would logically have to believe that climate change does not exist, or at least is not caused by CO2, to argue that there is no need to adapt to a changing climate.
If CO2 does cause climate change then it's pretty much set that we're going to get climate change since there's no serious proposal to change course.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?