Australia 'destroying life on Earth'

Woohoo!

We won!! We won!!

Aussie Aussie Aussie! Oi Oi Oi !!!

Ah...feeling that Aussie pride If its made in Australia its gotta be good (even carbon emissions)

It is ONLY Australian, when it is 'TNT Oi Oi Oi !!!

Anyone up for going to the park with a few slabs, cracking a few tinnies and celebrating our new-found status as 'destroyers of the earth'?

Ha. Don't forget about being at Sydney beach and watching out for the muslims.

Yeah, why not!

I still don't understand where a NASA scientist gets off saying that Aussies are destroying the Earth. He works for the biggest disinfo agency on the planet which just about invalidates anything that he's got to say.

How long will it be before we have nuclear power? (Other than the nuclear power stations that are already being operated here in secret - Pine Gap)

reply to post by tezzajw

---

I figure we can make a big bonfire, bring out all of our saved up Macca's styrofoam containers and cups and make ourselves toasty-warm watching as we do our own part to destroy the world. Then we can all stand around and take a deep breathe....


........then sit back down and crack another tinnie!

i don't get where he gets off saying we will 'destroy the earth'.. how ignorant is that!.. hahah people just don't give life enough credit... what is he thinking.. that the earth is static and never goes through changes?... asteroids have battered this planet and if anything diversity has grown from it... the whole nature of nature is to adapt.. geeezzzzz

How much carbon is burnt to make a tinnie instead of a stubby? If we're going to destroy the Earth properly, then we want to maximise our carbon burn rates and drink appropriately! Buy the drinks from the freezer, so there's carbon fuel used to pre-chill them!

Will Obama even give a damn about the letter when he's faced with the Middle East mess that his nation started? The USA destroys multiple continents simultaneously and we're being accused of destroying the Earth. That's rich. Maybe NASA scientists write their articles from the safety of ivory towers?

reply to post by Obliv_au

---

The people in Australia are spread over much larger distances than the US, so it stands to reason that if they are to have a similar standard of living, then more CO2 will be required per person. Then again you have to believe the CO2 hypothesis not to laugh at the never ending diatribe on the topic, which I personally think is an absolute joke as weather patterns are largely determined by changes in our sun, not CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

In regard to nuclear energy reactors and their inadequately neutralised waste I am concerned as to what will happen when the next ice age rolls around and the glaciers move over these sites and spread the radioactivity.

I'm all for promoting a cleaner, better, more advanced civilized world that brings cheap affordable energy to the masses of this planet, but that doesn't equate nuclear. That is solar, wind, wave, and geo-thermal. Anything else is the PROBLEM not the solution.

Of course he'll care. The Dems have the environmental movement crammed so far up their backsides that they have no choice. They'd take us back to the stone age if they could. Welcome to the idiocy known as American government.

As an American, let me be the one to say that this guy from Nasa needs to STFU. The last I checked, you guys were free to make your own laws.

Poppycock

The Earth is heating up as part of its natural cycle, this is why CO2 levels are rising. Manmade CO2 emissions cannot hurt the Earth at all, because the natural emissions are way higher than all our manmade emissions all together. The warmer it gets the more CO2 is released into the atmosphere. NOT the more Co2 there is the atmosphere the warmer it gets. This is the key fallacy of the convenient Gore crowd.

Natural rising Co2 emissions are a result of the rising temperature, not the cause. As scores of scientists have been screaming for years now and have been muted by the convenient truth crowd.

Read the pre-industrial Co2 charts. Where did all that Co2 come from before the middle ages, hmm? I´ll give you a hint: it was not from industrial emissions.


[edit on 6-1-2009 by MoonMine]

The term, Pot calling the kettle black comes to mind.
In the first place we in the US have no position from which to critique the actions of any other nation.
Australia has been our most stalwart ally thru thick and thin in so many instances that I personaly find it treasonous to attack them in any way.
From my expereince, just as I can not think of any people I would rather have at my 6, I also wouldn't want them pissed at me. LOL

Aye mates, one nasa nerd don't speak for all of us.

For what it's worth

Thanks for explaining that

I knew we burnt much less than the USA. I would think China would be burning quite a bit at this time to, considering they have become quite more of a developed country over the last decade or so. (not to pick on China, apologies)

Actually no we are not, something like 96 percent of us live in the coastal cities, the majority of our population is in almost one place. There are aslo many more people on the east coast than the west and central parts of Australia due to the harsher weather (in the west and central)

Is this what you meant to say?


[edit on 6/1/2009 by mungodave]

reply to post by MoonMine

---

I was thinking maybe Gore's rationale, as an advocate, was merely to use the human induced climate change theory as a means of relating to his audience. Surely no one would do anything about it if they knew it was a natural process, not to mention they would neglect to offer any substantial nominal contributions to such a cause as "combating global climate change". I'm sure many have come to this same conspiracy based formulation.

There is one issue I have with the latest ICCP assessment report, and that is the following statement.

“Warming tends to reduce terrestrial ecosystem and oceanic uptake of atmospheric CO2, increasing the fraction of anthropogenic emissions that remains in the atmosphere"

Whetton, P. (2007). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s 4th Assessment Report. Retrieved January 6, 2009, from www.csiro.au...

My problem here is that it's just a statement. The basic reasoning is: if there is less release of CO2 by terrestrial and oceanic systems, then there is less CO2 in the atmosphere coming from natural sources, and therefore what logically remains is human produced CO2. Honestly, that was the best conclusion that report gave. It didn't even bother to examine whether or not the actual physical amount of human produced CO2 was substantial enough to have any effect on global warming or regional climate change. They basically assumed that because global warming was happening and that because there is a larger proportion of human produced CO2 in the atmosphere in contrast from natural sources, then this warming must have been induced by human activity and industry. Still, the scientific community has failed to address any quantitative analysis on the volume of human produced carbon emissions, which might have a substantial impact on the the planet's climate.

The final portion of report, which is the really the only relevant one, is rife with uncertainty, as any conclusion on human induced climate change is met with obviously biased conjecture. What it does prove is that global warming is in fact occurring, but it goes confidently further in its redundancy to affirm the fact that the largest proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere comes from human sources. So what? We all know that. Is it actually causing the problem? They present two weak correlative data, that 1) human CO2 remains in the atmosphere even after emissions from natural sources is reduced, and 2) global warming is in fact occurring (duh!?). With those two points they go on to assume that naturally, they must corroborate each other, yet the report doesn't even bother addressing any such conclusion! Are they that arrogant to believe their opinion is fact? What's written in those reports is important. Some governments base most of their climate change objectives on the opinions of these institutions. What situation will we be in when they're no longer reliable? Or when their information is being treated as valid when it certainly is not comprehensive enough.

Anyway, while I might not be qualified to make any objection to the above statement or even issues provided, I find it highly inconclusive and incomplete. No scientist from any other field could possibly expect such academic lenience as this report has been given (probably because the governments are funding their Universities; critical attacks on such reports might be minimized by department heads with reputations at stake).

---

Just an aside now. I was always under the impression that warm temperatures encouraged the proliferation of life, thereby increasing the amount of CO2 intake by these systems. Surely all those biological systems are enough to reduce any impact by humans. Volcanoes have historically produced much more CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions than we have in our entire history. Or is the argument that the environment can't handle sustained stress?

What I think is that the specific way in which a planet warms might be used as some sort of indicator for the presence of CO2 in the atmosphere (pretty useless if you ask me. If the presence of CO2 can't explain warming then Gore really has no foundation), but that the level of CO2 should not necessarily suggest that CO2 is causing warming.

I'm surprised water vapor wasn't taken into consideration. There must be some complex water vapor dynamic, which affects changes in global climate. I'm not sure if there is any research being done, but it would be interesting to hear for once. Maybe increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is interfering with this theoretical environmental equilibrium inclusive of water vapor...

---

Footnote: Excuse me for using CO2 in place of greenhouse gasses throughout my post. While CO2 is one, it doesn't encompass all of them. It is one common gas produced by anthropogenic means. I used it for consistency and ease of reading.

[edit on 6-1-2009 by cognoscente]

I agree that NASA clown needs to mind his own business. BUT! We do rely on coal a bit too much. I think we should make an effort to utilise something a bit greener, nuclear power, despite having a bad reputation isn't as bad as it's made out to be, I think that option should be weighed up against another even greener option - Solar.


How many square kilometers of empty desert does Australia have? I think the government should consider building a vast solar powered array out in the desert, it would stimulate the economy by creating jobs, it will get a lot of drought stricken farmers out of debt by buying the land from them and we could power the whole country with ZERO emissions. Global warming or not, it's gotta be good for the environment.

Alternate fuel source:

huge hamster wheel manned by overweight people

killing two birds with one stone



take care all
res

[edit on 6-1-2009 by resistancia]

reply to post by watch_the_rocks

---

Numbers should be in the billions of tons per year. From coal alone, I would estimate over 2 billion tons from the US.