global warming

Casual discussion amongst spiritual friends.
Locked
User avatar
BlackBird
Posts: 1928
Joined: Fri Apr 17, 2009 12:07 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: global warming

Post by BlackBird » Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:10 pm

Cool video Manapa

Excuse the pun :)
"For a disciple who has conviction in the Teacher's message & lives to penetrate it, what accords with the Dhamma is this:
'The Blessed One is the Teacher, I am a disciple. He is the one who knows, not I." - MN. 70 Kitagiri Sutta

User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 3476
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Post by Alex123 » Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:12 pm

Buckwheat wrote:You obviously care something about who says what, because you are giving more weight to the interpretations of non-climateologists over the interpretations of climatologists.
I consider the data that I have. I don't care if Muslim, Xtian, Journalist or AGW proponent has said it.

I am interested in data that is LONG term rather than selective and short term. I am interested in what comes first, temperature change or CO2 change. Ice core data shows that temperature changes first.
Buckwheat wrote:Another interesting read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming
What about effects of Ice Age? Hot climate has its downsides, and so is cold climate. Samsara is imperfect and we are not the measure by which Earth's climate should be.

From your link:
"The future level of global warming is uncertain,"

Great, so catastrophic predictions are uncertain and how long will global warming continue is uncertain. Hopefully it will be high enough to prevent Ice Age.


Your own sources tell us that their predictions are UNCERTAIN, and yet you believe that they are certain about future level of global warming?!!!
"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

Buckwheat
Posts: 956
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: global warming

Post by Buckwheat » Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:31 pm

You are right, I just realized I never properly addressed this evidence. I appologize that it got lost in the cycle of redundancy. So here I go.
Ice Core Studies Prove CO2 Is Not the Powerful Climate Driver Climate Alarmists Make It Out to Be
Volume 6, Number 26: 25 June 2003

For the past two decades or more, we have heard much about the global warming of the 20th century being caused by the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration that is generally attributed to anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This story, however, has always been controversial [see Smagorinsky et al. (1982) and Idso (1982) for early pro/con positions on the issue]; and with the retrieval and preliminary analysis of the first long ice core from Vostok, Antarctica -- which provided a 150,000-year history of both surface air temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration -- the debate became even more intense, as the close associations of the ups and downs of atmospheric CO2 and temperature that were evident during glacial terminations and inceptions in that record, as well as in subsequent records of even greater length, led many climate alarmists to claim that those observations actually proved that anthropogenic CO2 emissions were responsible for 20th-century global warming.

This contention was challenged by Idso (1989), who wrote -- in reference to the very data that were used to support the claim -- that "changes in atmospheric CO2 content never precede changes in air temperature, when going from glacial to interglacial conditions; and when going from interglacial to glacial conditions, the change in CO2 concentration actually lags the change in air temperature (Genthon et al., 1987)." Hence, he concluded that "changes in CO2 concentration cannot be claimed to be the cause of changes in air temperature, for the appropriate sequence of events (temperature change following CO2 change) is not only never present, it is actually violated in [at least] half of the record (Idso, 1988)."

How has our understanding of this issue progressed in the interim? Our website provides several updates.

Petit et al. (1999) reconstructed histories of surface air temperature and atmospheric CO2 concentration from data obtained from a Vostok ice core that covered the prior 420,000 years, determining that during glacial inception "the CO2 decrease lags the temperature decrease by several thousand years" and that "the same sequence of climate forcing operated during each termination." Likewise, working with sections of ice core records from around the times of the last three glacial terminations, Fischer et al. (1999) found that "the time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years during all three glacial-interglacial transitions."

On the basis of atmospheric CO2 data obtained from the Antarctic Taylor Dome ice core and temperature data obtained from the Vostok ice core, Indermuhle et al. (2000) studied the relationship between these two parameters over the period 60,000-20,000 years BP (Before Present). One statistical test performed on the data suggested that shifts in the air's CO2 content lagged shifts in air temperature by approximately 900 years, while a second statistical test yielded a mean lag-time of 1200 years. Similarly, in a study of air temperature and CO2 data obtained from Dome Concordia, Antarctica for the period 22,000-9,000 BP -- which time interval includes the most recent glacial-to-interglacial transition -- Monnin et al. (2001) found that the start of the CO2 increase lagged the start of the temperature increase by 800 years. Then, in another study of the 420,000-year Vostok ice-core record, Mudelsee (2001) concluded that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged variations in air temperature by 1,300 to 5,000 years.

In a somewhat different type of study, Yokoyama et al. (2000) analyzed sediment facies in the tectonically stable Bonaparte Gulf of Australia to determine the timing of the initial melting phase of the last great ice age. In commenting on the results of that study, Clark and Mix (2000) note that the rapid rise in sea level caused by the melting of land-based ice that began approximately 19,000 years ago preceded the post-glacial rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration by about 3,000 years.

So what's the latest on the issue? To our knowledge, the most recent study to broach the subject is that of Caillon et al. (2003), who measured the isotopic composition of argon -- specifically, ð40Ar, which they argue "can be taken as a climate proxy, thus providing constraints about the timing of CO2 and climate change" -- in air bubbles in the Vostok ice core over the period that comprises what is called Glacial Termination III, which occurred about 240,000 years BP. The results of their tedious but meticulous analysis led them to ultimately conclude that "the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years."
Everything up to this point is OK, basically saying that in the past warming and cooling events, CO2 levels lag behind temperature changes. There is no statement of what causes the warming/cooling. Only repeatedly stating that CO2 lags temperature.

Now comes the red herring:
This finding, in the words of Caillon et al., "confirms that CO2 is not the forcing that initially drives the climatic system during a deglaciation."
Who is saying that CO2 was the forcing that intially drives the climatic system during a deglaciation? Quite the contrary, climate scientists point to a known forcing (changes to Earth's orbit) with a known magnitude that would cause enough warming to trigger CO2 feedbacks. However, that forcing is not strong enough to account for the entire deglaciation event.
Nevertheless, they and many others continue to hold to the view that the subsequent increase in atmospheric CO2 -- which is believed to be due to warming-induced CO2 outgassing from the world's oceans -- serves to amplify the warming that is caused by whatever prompts the temperature to rise in the first place.
This part is nearly accurate, except that "whatever" prompts the temperature to rise is not a whatever... It is a specific phenomena with a specific forcing magnitude (changes in Earth's orbit).
This belief, however, is founded on unproven assumptions about the strength of CO2-induced warming

This is a false accusation:
http://skepticalscience.com/empirical-e ... vanced.htm
The amount of warming caused by the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 may be one of the most misunderstood subjects in climate science. Many people think the anthropogenic warming can't be quantified, many others think it must be an insignificant amount. However, climate scientists have indeed quantified the anthropogenic contribution to global warming using empirical observations and fundamental physical equations.
And back to your article:
and is applied without any regard for biologically-induced negative climate feedbacks that may occur in response to atmospheric CO2 enrichment. Also, there is no way to objectively determine the strength of the proposed amplification from the ice core data.
CO2 feedback sure fits the data quite well. Has there been any other proposal? This ice core data is not the only indicator that CO2 affects climate (see above quote from skeptical science.)[/quote]

I did not have the time/expertise/resources required to verify the sources in this article. I will have to assume they are fairly reliable.

And the counter argument from climate scientists:
http://skepticalscience.com wrote:The skeptic argument...
CO2 lags temperature
"An article in Science magazine illustrated that a rise in carbon dioxide did not precede a rise in temperatures, but actually lagged behind temperature rises by 200 to 1000 years. A rise in carbon dioxide levels could not have caused a rise in temperature if it followed the temperature." (Joe Barton)
What the science says...
When the Earth comes out of an ice age, the warming is not initiated by CO2 but by changes in the Earth's orbit. The warming causes the oceans to release CO2. The CO2 amplifies the warming and mixes through the atmosphere, spreading warming throughout the planet. So CO2 causes warming AND rising temperature causes CO2 rise. Overall, about 90% of the global warming occurs after the CO2 increase.
Over the last half million years, our climate has experienced long ice ages regularly punctuated by brief warm periods called interglacials. Atmospheric carbon dioxide closely matches the cycle, increasing by around 80 to 100 parts per million as Antarctic temperatures warm up to 10°C. However, when you look closer, CO2 actually lags Antarctic temperature changes by around 1,000 years. While this result was predicted two decades ago (Lorius 1990), it still surprises and confuses many. Does warming cause CO2 rise or the other way around? In actuality, the answer is both.

Image
Figure 1: Vostok Antarctic ice core records for carbon dioxide concentration (Petit 2000) and temperature change (Barnola 2003).

Interglacials come along approximately every 100,000 years. This is called the Milankovitch cycle, brought on by changes in the Earth's orbit. There are three main changes to the earth's orbit. The shape of the Earth's orbit around the sun (eccentricity) varies between an ellipse to a more circular shape. The earth's axis is tilted relative to the sun at around 23°. This tilt oscillates between 22.5° and 24.5° (oblithis quity). As the earth spins around it's axis, the axis wobbles from pointing towards the North Star to pointing at the star Vega (precession).

Image
Figure 2: The three main orbital variations. Eccentricity: changes in the shape of the Earth’s orbit.Obliquity: changes in the tilt of the Earth’s rotational axis. Precession: wobbles in the Earth’s rotational axis.

The combined effect of these orbital cycles causes long term changes in the amount of sunlight hitting the earth at different seasons, particularly at high latitudes. For example, the orbital cycles triggered warming at high latitutdes approximately 19,000 years ago, causing large amounts of ice to melt, flooding the oceans with fresh water. This influx of fresh water then disrupted the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC), in turn causing a seesawing of heat between the hemispheres (Shakun 2012). The Southern Hemisphere and its oceans warmed first, starting about 18,000 years ago. As the Southern Ocean warms, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999).

The outgassing of CO2 from the ocean has several effects. The increased CO2 in the atmosphere amplifies the original warming. The relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles is insufficient to cause the dramatic temperature change taking our climate out of an ice age (this period is called a deglaciation). However, the amplifying effect of CO2 is consistent with the observed warming.

CO2 from the Southern Ocean also mixes through the atmosphere, spreading the warming north (Cuffey 2001). Tropical marine sediments record warming in the tropics around 1000 years after Antarctic warming, around the same time as the CO2 rise (Stott 2007). Ice cores in Greenland find that warming in the Northern Hemisphere lags the Antarctic CO2 rise (Caillon 2003).

To claim that the CO2 lag disproves the warming effect of CO2 displays a lack of understanding of the processes that drive Milankovitch cycles. A review of the peer reviewed research into past periods of deglaciation tells us several things:

Deglaciation is not initiated by CO2 but by orbital cycles
CO2 amplifies the warming which cannot be explained by orbital cycles alone
CO2 spreads warming throughout the planet
Overall, more than 90% of the glacial-interglacial warming occurs after the atmospheric CO2 increase (Figure 3).

Image
Figure 3: The global proxy temperature stack (blue) as deviations from the early Holocene (11.5–6.5 kyr ago) mean, an Antarctic ice-core composite temperature record (red), and atmospheric CO2 concentration (yellow dots). The Holocene, Younger Dryas (YD), Bølling–Allerød (B–A), Oldest Dryas (OD) and Last Glacial Maximum (LGM) intervals are indicated. Error bars, 1-sigma; p.p.m.v. = parts per million by volume. Shakun et al. Figure 2a.
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.

Buckwheat
Posts: 956
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: global warming

Post by Buckwheat » Mon Mar 25, 2013 10:37 pm

Alex123 wrote:From your link:
"The future level of global warming is uncertain,"
Great, so catastrophic predictions are uncertain and how long will global warming continue is uncertain. Hopefully it will be high enough to prevent Ice Age.

Your own sources tell us that their predictions are UNCERTAIN, and yet you believe that they are certain about future level of global warming?!!!
There is not a single thing in science that does not contain uncertainty. The beautiful thing about science is that uncertainty gets quantified. The uncertainty here is that, assuming we continue spouting CO2 into the atmosphere unchecked, the future will either be very difficult or we will simply go extinct. The reason I included that link was to show that predictions are not for the Earth to suddenly explode, but that the difficulties can be studied, quantified, and through mitigation and adaptation we can live through this. If we do nothing, we might have to get really, really good at fasting.

(Edited for spelling)
Last edited by Buckwheat on Mon Mar 25, 2013 11:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.

User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 3476
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Post by Alex123 » Mon Mar 25, 2013 11:07 pm

Hello Buckwheat,
Thank you for your reply
Buckwheat wrote: Everything up to this point is OK, basically saying that in the past warming and cooling events, CO2 levels lag behind temperature changes. There is no statement of what causes the warming/cooling. Only repeatedly stating that CO2 lags temperature.
So if CO2 occurs well after (400-1200 years) temperature changes then something else caused and or amplified that warming that occurred 400-1200 years ago. Biggest factor in the increase in current CO2 rise would be due to causes in813AD-1613AD . Medieval WARM period occurred between 950 to 1250...

Notice similarity in dates 813-1613AD and 950-1250AD. It fits perfectly! Temperature ROSE in 950AD to 1250AD being primary cause of current (up to 2013) increases in CO2.
Buckwheat wrote: Who is saying that CO2 was the forcing that intially drives the climatic system during a deglaciation? Quite the contrary, climate scientists point to a known forcing (changes to Earth's orbit) with a known magnitude that would cause enough warming to trigger CO2 feedbacks. However, that forcing is not strong enough to account for the entire deglaciation event.
So Earth's orbit (and I assume sun activity as well) are primary mechanisms that warm up the Earth and then 400-1200 years later CO2 is produced as a result.

Lets think about it. How can CO2 which occurs much later as an effect affect Temperature? Wouldn't this contradict the statement that CO2 lags temperature changes? It lags temperature changes, it doesn't affect those temperature changes.

Why that despite great increases or decreases of CO2 during Cambrian and other period, the Earth's average temperature remained at approximately the same 23C? Doesn't it suggest that there is, at best, a temperature ceiling that is not exceeded? Even if CO2 which lags temperature change by 400-1200 has some warming properties, maybe the strength of the warming doesn't go above Global Average of 23C as an average?
During the interglacials, one of which we are in now, the climate warmed to more or less present-day temperatures link
Considering how little CO2 humans release into atmosphere (we btw, don't produce new Carbon chemical. We release natural carbon stores into an atmosphere), and considering that nature can also remove CO2 from atmosphere, what proof that our contribution are above noise?

Any other parts to discuss in this topic?
Last edited by Alex123 on Mon Mar 25, 2013 11:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 3476
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Post by Alex123 » Mon Mar 25, 2013 11:10 pm

Buckwheat wrote:
Alex123 wrote:From your link:
"The future level of global warming is uncertain,"
Great, so catastrophic predictions are uncertain and how long will global warming continue is uncertain. Hopefully it will be high enough to prevent Ice Age.

Your own sources tell us that their predictions are UNCERTAIN, and yet you believe that they are certain about future level of global warming?!!!
There is not a single thing in science that does not contain undertainty. The beautiful thing about science is that uncertainty gets quantified. The uncertainty here is that, assuming we continue spouting CO2 into the atmosphere unchecked, the future will either be very difficult or we will simply go extinct. The reason I included that link was to show that predictions are not for the Earth to suddenly explode, but that the difficulties can be studied, quantified, and through mitigation and adaptation we can live through this. If we do nothing, we might have to get really, really good at fasting.
What prevents temperature from going above average of 23C or so? Earth's climate averaged 23C degree for millions of years. This seems to be its more usual temperature. The current 14.51C temperature is unusual.

What prevents interglacial that we live in from turning back into ice age? The fact that temperature is rising is the whole meaning of current Holocene interglacial which started about 11,400 years ago.

Considering that IPCC themselves stated that "The future level of global warming is uncertain" (which is claimed to cause severe weather) you seem to be certain that it is either going to be very difficult or we go extinct? What if the temperature stalls at current levels for long period of time? What if it even goes slightly down. After all, IPCC themselves are uncertain about future level of global warming and we are in interglacial.

I believe that severe weather occurred as long as climate existed. Hot temperature has its downsides, and cold temperature has its own.

As for humans going extinct, there are other possibilities such as asteroid strike (which could have killed the dinosaurs).
"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

Buckwheat
Posts: 956
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: global warming

Post by Buckwheat » Mon Mar 25, 2013 11:26 pm

I didn't really understand a lot of that post. There is not one story that describes all climate change.

The story for the recurring ice-ages / deglaciations as seen in the Vostek ice cores is this:
1) For some time, there was a relatively constant temps during the ice age.
2) Due to changes in the Earth's orbit, there was a small to moderate amount of global warming.
3) This caused CO2 to be released from the ocean into the atmosphere.
4) releasing CO2 caused more warming, which caused more release of CO2
5) This continued until there was another period of relatively constant temps during the interglacial.

Then the reverse happened:
6) As Earth's orbital characteristics continued to change, there was a small to moderate amount of global cooling.
7) This caused CO2 to be stored in the ocean
8) This caused greenhouse effect to be weakened, which lowered temps further, which caused more CO2 to be stored in oceans.
9) This continued until there was another period of relatively constant temps during the ice-age

For AGW, the story is different:
1) Due to human activity, CO2 is released from deep earth sources (coal, oil, gas) leading to warming

The temerature change predicted by AGW is not nearly as large as happened during the natural cycles of glaciation / deglaciation. What concerns us is how rapidly it will happen and how it will affect our food stores and habitats.
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.

User avatar
Alex123
Posts: 3476
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 11:32 pm

Re: global warming

Post by Alex123 » Mon Mar 25, 2013 11:28 pm

Buckwheat wrote:For AGW, the story is different:
1) Due to human activity, CO2 is released from deep earth sources (coal, oil, gas) leading to warming
If CO2 release LAGS temperature changes by 400-1200 years (that you have accepted in previous post) than it is not the cause nor amplification of those temperature changes 400-1200 years before CO2's rise. This is what means for something to lag. CO2 is not concurrent, it lags by 400-1200.

An interesting quote from your site:
even if we were to immediately stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere, the planet would warm another ~0.6°C until it reached this new equilibrium state (confirmed by Hansen 2005). This is referred to as the 'warming in the pipeline'.
So stopping all CO2, at great price to the economy, the planet would still warm up...
"Life is a struggle. Life will throw curveballs at you, it will humble you, it will attempt to break you down. And just when you think things are starting to look up, life will smack you back down with ruthless indifference..."

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Tue Mar 26, 2013 2:19 am

Climate scientists say the massive snow storms to hit North America and Europe this year were linked to shrinking sea ice levels in the Arctic.
More: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-26/n ... ne/4594802
:coffee:
Kim

Buckwheat
Posts: 956
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:39 am
Location: California USA

Re: global warming

Post by Buckwheat » Tue Mar 26, 2013 2:24 am

Alex123 wrote:An interesting quote from your site:
even if we were to immediately stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere, the planet would warm another ~0.6°C until it reached this new equilibrium state (confirmed by Hansen 2005). This is referred to as the 'warming in the pipeline'.
So stopping all CO2, at great price to the economy, the planet would still warm up...
Yes, we already waited to long to act, so we are stuck with ~0.6°C temperature rise. The longer we wait to act, the larger that number gets.
Sotthī hontu nirantaraṃ - May you forever be well.

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Tue Mar 26, 2013 6:55 am

Buckwheat wrote:
Alex123 wrote:An interesting quote from your site:
even if we were to immediately stop adding CO2 to the atmosphere, the planet would warm another ~0.6°C until it reached this new equilibrium state (confirmed by Hansen 2005). This is referred to as the 'warming in the pipeline'.
So stopping all CO2, at great price to the economy, the planet would still warm up...
Yes, we already waited to long to act, so we are stuck with ~0.6°C temperature rise. The longer we wait to act, the larger that number gets.
... and there are in fact great benefits to the economy from shifting away from fossil fuels and stopping CO2 emissions. I have already provided links to sources for that in this thread and can't be bothered trawling through it to find my post, but a domain-limited google search for "Garnaut" will find it.

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
manas
Posts: 2464
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:04 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: global warming

Post by manas » Tue Mar 26, 2013 7:56 am

Kim O'Hara wrote: ... and there are in fact great benefits to the economy from shifting away from fossil fuels and stopping CO2 emissions. I have already provided links to sources for that in this thread and can't be bothered trawling through it to find my post, but a domain-limited google search for "Garnaut" will find it.
:namaste:
Kim
Pity that so many of our brightest talents in the field of solar R&D ended up in China, due to the Australian Government's actual lack of interest in it. So, we end up with a carbon tax, higher electricity prices, massive Government handouts to the Coal-burning power plants, but diddly-squat investment in solar or other renewable energy. In reality, our Govt doesn't give a damn about AGW, real or not; the only reason they did it was because the Greens made it a condition of their support.

I'm actually in favour of more renewable energy Kim, unlike our corporate-controlled Govt. But that doesn't stop them from squeezing a bit of revenue out of us, using AGW as a pretext.

:anjali:
Knowing this body is like a clay jar,
securing this mind like a fort,
attack Mara with the spear of discernment,
then guard what's won without settling there,
without laying claim.

- Dhp 40

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Tue Mar 26, 2013 8:03 am

manas wrote:
Kim O'Hara wrote: ... and there are in fact great benefits to the economy from shifting away from fossil fuels and stopping CO2 emissions. I have already provided links to sources for that in this thread and can't be bothered trawling through it to find my post, but a domain-limited google search for "Garnaut" will find it.
:namaste:
Kim
Pity that so many of our brightest talents in the field of solar R&D ended up in China, due to the Australian Government's actual lack of interest in it. So, we end up with a carbon tax, higher electricity prices, massive Government handouts to the Coal-burning power plants, but diddly-squat investment in solar or other renewable energy. In reality, our Govt doesn't give a damn about AGW, real or not; the only reason they did it was because the Greens made it a condition of their support.

I'm actually in favour of more renewable energy Kim, unlike our corporate-controlled Govt. But that doesn't stop them from squeezing a bit of revenue out of us, using AGW as a pretext.

:anjali:
Yes. Aussie politics aren't of any interest to most on DW but let me say that Labor's policies have not impressed me at all and the Ministers (until recently - I know at least one has gone) for the Environment and for Mines acted like they hated the environment and loved the miners. Grr!
But when Labor drifts to the right, it's leftish supporters drift towards the Greens :juggling:
It may get ugly but I'm pretty sure it's going to be interesting.

:namaste:
Kim

User avatar
manas
Posts: 2464
Joined: Thu Jul 22, 2010 3:04 am
Location: Melbourne, Australia

Re: global warming

Post by manas » Tue Mar 26, 2013 8:27 am

Kim O'Hara wrote: Yes. Aussie politics aren't of any interest to most on DW but let me say that Labor's policies have not impressed me at all and the Ministers (until recently - I know at least one has gone) for the Environment and for Mines acted like they hated the environment and loved the miners. Grr!
But when Labor drifts to the right, it's leftish supporters drift towards the Greens :juggling:
It may get ugly but I'm pretty sure it's going to be interesting.
:namaste:
Kim
I know I diverged a bit, I just wanted to make the point that myself (and to my knowledge many other AGW 'sceptics' here) are actually in favour of moving towards less-polluting sources of energy. In how I try to live and organise my life, I'm actually quite 'green'. And I'm frustrated at how our amazing environments and ecosystems continue to be given second place to mining interests. When they have mined and fracked every last bit of mineral and gas out of this land, it is we who will be left with a big mess to clean up - assuming that ground water contaminated with fracking chemicals actually can be cleaned up.

Anyway I'll leave off my angry rant :tongue:

:anjali:
Knowing this body is like a clay jar,
securing this mind like a fort,
attack Mara with the spear of discernment,
then guard what's won without settling there,
without laying claim.

- Dhp 40

User avatar
Kim OHara
Posts: 4999
Joined: Wed Dec 09, 2009 5:47 am
Location: North Queensland, Australia

Re: global warming

Post by Kim OHara » Tue Mar 26, 2013 11:29 am

manas wrote:...
I know I diverged a bit, I just wanted to make the point that myself (and to my knowledge many other AGW 'sceptics' here) are actually in favour of moving towards less-polluting sources of energy. In how I try to live and organise my life, I'm actually quite 'green'. And I'm frustrated at how our amazing environments and ecosystems continue to be given second place to mining interests. When they have mined and fracked every last bit of mineral and gas out of this land, it is we who will be left with a big mess to clean up - assuming that ground water contaminated with fracking chemicals actually can be cleaned up.

Anyway I'll leave off my angry rant :tongue:

:anjali:
No, don't stop ranting! Just make it bigger, louder - get up on a rooftop and shout! Wave placards!!
Make the bastards listen - and never, ever, give up!!
:jedi:
But don't lose your sense of proportion along the way.
:smile:
:meditate:

Kim

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 55 guests